ML19323H469
| ML19323H469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/16/1980 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1736, NUDOCS 8006130029 | |
| Download: ML19323H469 (13) | |
Text
..
_ c. m
---m r -- -
D hL tI(P G
sus-nr3c
~
' *,).i
,l I.J.!F
?
Nd bb MINUTES OF THE ACR EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE 5//6/fp WASHINGTON, D. C. - APRIL 22, 1980 The Site Evaluation Subcommittee of the ACRS met on April 22,1980 at 1717 I
H St.4 N.W., Washington D.C.
,The main purpose of the meeting was to review the proposed Emergency Planning Rule (10 CFR 50) and related matters.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Feder I Register on April 7,1980.
Copies of the notice, meeting attendees list, and meeting schedule are included as Attachments 1, 2, and 3, respectively. One written statement and three re-quests for time to make oral coments were received from-members of the public.
Executive Session Mr. D. Moeller, Subcommittee Chainnan, convened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. and i
introduced the ACRS members and consultants (Attachment 2) who were present.
The meeting was conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Comittee Act l
and the Government in the Sunshine Act. Mr. Peter Tam was the Designated Federal Employee.
Mr. Moeller indicated, in his opening statement, that the Subcomittee would review this rule and document its findings in a draft ACRS letter.
Prior I
to the meeting, consultants Orth, Grendon, Foster and Steindler had submitted written comments on the proposed rule. Members and consultants made no addi-i tional comments at this point and the meeting proceeded as scheduled.
I Discussion with the NRC Staff-1.
Rationale for and description of proposed rule change - (M. Jamgochian).
Mr. Jamgochian said that since the TMI-2 accident, the Commission has de-cided that, based on findings of all the study groups, emergency planning should be viewed as equivalent to siting and design in nuclear safety. As a result, the proposed rule changes were published on December 19, 1979.
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS 8006130039 P00R QUAUTY PAGES.r i
t
. - o
?..
(The Staff had briefed the Subcommittee in its December 1979 meeting and
~
copies of the Federal Register notice were available).
Several members and consultants found it difficult to interprete the alter-natives "A" and "B", as described in PP. 75167 and 75168 of the Dec. 19, 1979 Federal Register notice. The Staff said that many public comments also
~
pointed to these alSrnatives and that it will re-write these pages.
Mr. Goller said that basically, alternative "A" says NRC will initiate action to shut down a plant for non-compliance, but alternative "B" says shutdown will be automatic unless licensee initiates action to avoid shut-down.
Several consultants pointed out that the proposed rule would enable a recalcitrant and obstructionist local government agency to cause shutdown or delay in startup; even delay by NRC in its review could also cause shut-down or delay. Mr. Goller admitted that the consultant's observation was correct.
The Staff has held four workshops in four major cities to discuss the feasi-bility of the proposed changes of 10 CFR 50, their impagt, and the procedures for complying with their provisions.
Copies of the proceedings of these workshops, NUREG/CP-00ll, were provided to the Subcommittee.
The proposed changes are:
(1) 10 CFR 50.33, Contents of Application - requires the applicant to send in State and local government emergency response plans with OL application.
(2) 10 CFR 50.47 Emergency Plans - no OL will be issued without NRC con-currence in State / local emergency response plans.
Exceptions and ex-emptions may be permitted.
(3) 10 CFR 50.54, Condition of Licenses - for operating plants, require con-l currence in State / local emergency response plants or face possible
plant shutdown; if an operating plant loses State / local concurrence, it faces possible shutdown.
(4) 10 CFR 50, Appendix E -
Specification of " Emergency Action Levels" Dissemination to the public of basic emergency planning information (e.g. - anndal, mailing, printing on front page of phone book, etc.)
Provision for prompt alerting of the public and instructions for public protection (15 minutes for notification of public within plume exposure EPZ)
One on-site technical support center and one near-site emergency operation center Redundant communications systems Specialized training Provisions for up-to-date plan maintenance i
i The Subcommittee was concerned about the requirement to notify the public within the plume exposure emergency planning zone in fifteen minutes. Several points were noted:
feasibility to attain such (Should it be NRC's responsibility to show thattherequirementisattainable?)
necessity for such (Those living farther away but still within the plume exposure EPZ may not need to be notified immediately.
In fact, simultaneous mass evacuation may create traffic congestion which hinders further action).
difficulty with sparsely populated areas.
the expense associated with such capability.
4
4-
,2.
Policy Issues - (K. Goller)
Mr. Goller indicated that the Staff plans to publish the rule in June,1980, and expects to enforce its requirements in January, 1981. Over 100 letters have been received and additional comments are still coming in.
In addition, two organizations have submitted petitions relative to this rulemaking:
the KMC corporation has pe,titioned for deletion of the '15 minute' requirement r.
and a hearing on this. Devevaise and Lieberman have petitioned that the rule-making be deferred until the criteria for State / local plans are considered.
Major comments are:
(1) lhe proposed rule provides third party veto power to State / local govern-ments (they can block plant operation by non-concurrence).
(2) Several comr.entators questioned its legality and constitutionality, especially the indirect requirement on licensees to fund State / local emergency planning.
(3) FEMA /NRC relationship is not clearly defined; there is possibility of redundant review by NRC and FEMA.
(4) Some requirements have no technical justification.
(5) Proposed implementation schedule is not reasonable.
(6)
Funding responsibility is not clearly defined During the discussion with the Staff, the following points of concern were identified:
(1) Mr. Steindler asked if "the Staff has any idea about the feasibil.ity of the 15-minute notification requirement, and if the Staff has taken on itself to show that such is attainable. Mr. Goller said that the Staff has not received evidence that such is not possible. He admitted that 15-minutes would be difficult and expensive to attain but not impossible.
6
- (2) The Subcommittee asked what level of cooperation from State / local govern-ments the Staff has encountered so far. Mr. Grimes said that the Staff had received unanimous cooperation for operating plants. He was not sure about plants under construction.
(3) The Subcommittee indicated that the rule is too prescriptive and lacks statements of objectives.
For example, it gives the impression that evacuation is the prescribed action.
If objectives only are stated, the licensee may be able to provide more satisfactory alternatives to evacu-ation. These alternatives may be site-and plant-specific.
(4) Some consultants stated that a good emergency plan should not be as long as "several hundred pages", as the Staff has indicated; it should be much more concise.
It may be more important to have good people to carry out a medi-ocre plan than to have mediocre people to carry out a good plan.
(5) The Subcommittee indicated that the implementation schedule of the final rule is tight.
(i.e. Jan. 1981, or face possibility of plant shutdown).
A more reasonable pace should be allowed.
(6) The Staff pointed out that in the past, emergency planning played a secondary role to siting and engineered safety features. Today it is regarded as important as the other two in nuclear safety.
(7) The Subcommittee noted that the role assigned to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) is unclear.
It seems that FEP' ~:tself does not even have enough manpower.today - it needs personnel detailed from NRC.
\\
., 3.
NUREG-0654 - (B. Grimes)
The NUREG report, " Radiological Emergency Response Plar, and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants", was provided to the Subcommittee prica to the meeting. Mr. Grimes indicated that since he helped answer a lot of the questions during Mr. Jamgochian and Mr. Go11er's presentation, he had in essence made his presentation. No formal presentation was thus made.
r.
Public Comments Three requests to make oral statements were received. These statements are summarized below:
1.
Mr. J. E. Howard, Boston Edison Co.
(Written statement also submitted).
Mr. Howard said that he supports improving emergency response capabilities, but opposes adoption of the rule in its present form.
He said that the rule is prescriptive and lacks a technical basis for its requirements. He specifi-cally pointed out that the 15-minute notification requirement within 10 miles is unreasonable, and cited NUREG-0396 which states that beyond five miles, evacuation and shelter are comparable options for reducing exposure.
Evacu-ation should not be considered the only option, as the rule currently implies.
Uniform evacuation of an area ten miles in radius could create an unprecedented traffic jam and impede evacuation.
2.
Mr. R. Breen, EPRI Mr. Breen indicated that work currently underway at NSAC and elsewhere suggests that a serious threat to the public would not exist for several hours following the onset of site emergency conditions described in NUREG-0654, Appendix. The 15-minute requirement appears unnecessarily short, and would create psychological stress, irrational action and panic situations. Consequently, the rule should allow for more rational actions.
., 3.
Mr. D. Knuth, KMC Mr. Knuth spoke on behalf of 27 utilities. He said that the Staff has ignored comments by the utilities and has been using the rule as if it were final. He also criticized the 15-ninute notification requirement.
He stated that the uniform requirements in the proposed rule impede development of site-plant specific options.
KMC' has provided suggested changes (in two letters ) to the Comission on NUREG-08544and NUREG-0610.
Copies of these letters were pro-vided to the Subcommittee.
In addition, S. J. Harris (EEI) and F. Stetson (AIF) provided copies of their comment letters that they submitted to the Commission on Feb.19 and Feb. 21, res,pectively. 'These two individuals did not make any oral statements.
Executive Session The following points were reiterated:
The rule should have some form of graded time-versus-distance require-ment, instead of the present 15-minute unifonn notification require-ment.
There does not seem to be any justification for the '15-minute' requirement.
Emergency measures, such as methods of evacuation, should not appear in places like phone directories; othemise people would just blindly follow with no regard for actually needed level of response.
Too much detail in the rule; should provide objectives instead.
FEMA role is not clearly defined.
Staff should provide technical basis for criteria stated in NUREG-0654.
(meg; ting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
The Subcomittee drafted a letter for the ACRS on the following day.)'
e
,.. A complete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. or can be obtained from the International Verbatim Reporters, Inc., Suite 107, 449 South Capitol Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202/484-3550.
d i
\\
}.
1 e
E J
ATTACHMENT 4 i
LIST OF DOCUMENfS RECEIVED BEFORE AND DURING THE MEETING i
(Since all these documents, except No. 9, were freelyavailable before, during A copy of each, and after the meeting, they are not attached to these minutes.
however, has been filed in the ACRS office.)
1.
M. Jamgochian's viewgraphs, " Rationale for and Description of Proposed Rule Change s."
r..
2.. C. Galler's viewgraphs,' " Policy Issues on Emergency Planning Rule Changes."
3.
NUREG/CP-00ll, " Proceedings of Workshops on Proposed Rulemaking on Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants."
1 4.
J. Howard's written statement.
5.
R. Breen's viewgraphs and supporting documents.
6.
D. Knuth's viewgraphs and supporting documents.
7.
S. J. Harris, " Edison Electric Institute Comments on NRC Proposed Emergency Planning Rule."
8.
F. Stetson, Letter from S. G. Ward to S. Chilk of NRC, dated Feb. 21, 1980.
89.
Memo, P. Tam of ACRS to the Subcommittee, " Status Report."
i
F Federal RegisterTVol. 45. No 88 ndonday. April 7, 1980 7 23553
' Law Enforcement Assistance Actiost Notice of Extension to June 14 by members of thi ShMtee,its 3
Administration 1980, cf Opportunity to File Raquest far consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring i
Hearing.
to make ord! statements should notify Request for Commenta on the the Designated Federal Employee as far Prsposed LEAA Guideline:
Notice has previously been given in advance as pr=<*=hle so that Delinquency Prevention Research c 7d (March 4.1980. 45 FR 14724) that appropriate arrangements can be<nade Westinghouse E2ectric Corporation has to allow the necessary time during the f
Dev:lopment; Correction submined an application for a Special meeting for such statements.
In FR Doc. 80 7519 sppearing on page Nuclear Material license authortzm3 he agenda for subject meeting shall 4
16126 in the issue of %,ednesday, March Westinghouse to acquire, deliver.
be as follows!
12.1980,in the last kne of the first rece ve possess. ase andinitially column. change on or before April 1.
transfer special nucleer material, for its 7$esday. Apri 22. M. A.10 a.m. until 1980 to on or before April 11,1980-Nuclear Puel Dnvision. Alabama Nuclear conclusion fbusiness v
D2vid D. West.
Fuel Fabrication Plant (ANFFP), a new the Subcommittee will review plans of the Detector.rormulo Gmnts and Tehf facility proposed for location near saw NRC Office of Analysis and Evaluation 4j Assistonce Division.
Prattville. Alsbama.he Federal of Opersenal Deta and NRC acun 6
)
o*
tra poc anosso rw + so sas.=1 Register notice cited above further 7 to &e ACEM Report @N j
stated that persons who unabed to file a It may be mecassary far the Subr==mittee s w mo esce 44io.is.es 4
. request for hearing ahr=M do so by go hold one or more closed annuma for the I
[.
April 7.1980.
purpose of exploring matters tavolvina
)
R:questa for Commenta on Wie ne March 6.1980. Federal Register proprietary tmienmation. I have desernsined, la l
d Pr posed LEAA Guideline-Removing notice also stated that the applicant's accordance with Subsection la(d) of the i
j Children From Adult Jalls and Lock-Environmental Report and supplements Federal Advisory Committes Act (Public Law Ups thereto would be provided to the State s24ss). that. should such sessics:s be Correction Clearinghouse. Alabama Development nquindJa is necessary to done een Office. c/o State Capitol. Montgomery, sessions a ymtect pmpnetaWnnaen.
Sn 5 m WM rt in FR Doc. 804962 appearing on page Alabama 36130; and the Metropolitan W
19524 in the issue of Tuesday. March 25.
Clearinghouse. Central Alabama Fudher information regarding topics r-1980,in 'he second line of the second Regional Planning and Development to be discussed. t 'hether the meeting column of page 19524. change "... April Commission,808 Lawrence Street, has been cancelled or rescheduled, the p
15.1980..."to "... April 25.1980...".
Montgomery. Alabaina 36104.Because Chairman's ruling on requests for the
?
8Elseococcise64 w these documents did not arrive in opportunity to present oral statements I
sufficient time for review, the tiendline and the time allotted therefor can be for filing petitions requesting a bearing obtained by a prepaid telephone call to NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON has been extended to June 14.1980.
the cognizant Designated Federal I'
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY Questions should be directed to W.T.
Employee.Dr. Andrew L Bates Crow. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory (telephone 202/634-326-) between 8.15 Fu!I Council Meetings; Time Change Comm! salon. Division of PoalCycle and a.m. and 520 gun EST.
l Apri! L iseo.
Material Safety. 396-SS. Wa shington.
Deled Aprd i.teso.
On March 19,1980. the National D.C. 20555. Phot.e (301) 427-4510.
John C. Hoyle, g~
Advisory Council on Economic Dated at silver Sprina. Maryland this 3rd Advisory thwree Mcansenser crficer.
Opportunity announced that it will hold day of Apra 1980.
p %,_,ame rw - %
F meetings on April 21 and 22,1980 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss' ion.
maAsso coce reec.43 as
[
st:rting at 9.30 a.m. EST at its office.
R.G.Page.
1725 K Street. N.W Suite 405.
h tingChief UmniumFue/LicensingBreach, k
Washington. D.C. (45 FR 17702). %e Division 6fruel cycle andMataria/Sefety.
Advisory Committee on Reactor time of thq April 21 meeting has been p %.a
,u m,,,,,
Safeguards; Subcommittee on Site changed to 1 p.m. All other information 1,. cons no a Evaluation; Meettng g
remains the same.
%e ACRS Subcommittee on Site Wdtst B. Quetsch.
Evaluation will hold a meeting on h-Executive Director.
Advisory Committee on Reactor Tuesday. Apri122.1980 in room 1046.
pa w en.ime rw +4 ar ass..!
Safeguards; Subcommittee on 1717 H St. NW, Washington. DC 20555 swwo coot asso.a.as Ucensee Event Reporta (LERs);
to review the proposed Emergency t.
Meeting Planning Rule (10 CFR, Part 50)
The ACRS Subcommfttee on Licensee published in the Federal Register
[.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Event Reports (LERs) will hold a December 19,1979, and NUREG-0654
.j COMMISSION meeting on April 22.1980, in Room 1046
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation i l ID8Cliet No.70-2009]
1717 H St N.W., Washington, DC 20555.
ofIhdiological Emergency Response t
Notice of this meeting tvas published Plans and Preparedness in Support of March 19.1980.
Nuclear Power Plants."
t: Alabama Nuclear Fuel Fabrication In accordance with the procedures In accordance with the p'om.dures r
5 Plant (ANFFP) Westinghouse Electric outlined in the Federal Register on outlined in the Federal Registar on
- l Corn.;lesuance of Special Nuclear October 1.1979. (44 FR 56408), oral or Octaber 1.1979. (44 FR 56408) eral or 4 Matertal License; Extension of written statements may be presented by written statementa may be presented by Opportunity To Request for Hearing members of the pub!2 recordings will members of the ublic, recordings will a:ENev:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory be permitted only during those portions be permitted o during those portions
'F i Commission. Division of Fuel Cycle and of the meeting when a transcri t is being of the meeting en a transcript is being Material Safety.
- kept, and questions may be as ed only kept, and questions may be asked only
[
L r
(
I
N;tices Federal Regist:r / Vol. 45. No. 68 / Monday. April 7.1980 r -.
37 3 Octob:r 1. tr?9. (44 FR 56408), er:1 or (the licens:e) which revised the Ucense
- members of the Subcommittee,its writtrn statemerits may be presInted by and Tschnical Specificati
- ns for yonsultants, and Staff. Persons desiring members of the public, recordings wid operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station. Unit No.1 (the facility) located d make oral statements should notify he Drsignated Federal Employee as far be permitted only during those portions in Oswego County. New York.The h advance as practicable so that of the teeting when a transcript is being amendment is effective as of its date of ppropriate arrangements can be made kept, and questions may be asked only issuance.
o allow the necessary time during the by members of the Subcommittee,its De amendment consists of changes neeting for such statements.
consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring The agends for subject meeting shall to make oral statements should notify to the Technical Specifications to the Designated Federal Employee as far modify the power to flow curve and
)e as follows:
in advance as practicable so that allow additional operational flexibility ruesday. April 22. 2m0. Ho p.m. untilth, appropriate arrangements can be made during plant loed changes. In addition.
- onclusion of business to allow the necessary time during the corrections have been made to the The Subcommittee may meet in Executive meeting for such statements, license to reflect the present power 5ession, with any of its consultants who may De agenda for this meeting shall be limitations at the end of cycle.
e present, to explore and exdhange their rehminary opinions regar&ng matte.rs which as follows:
De applications for the amendment b
t ve $sion_
Yursday and Wednesday. AprilD andD.
complies with the standards and p
Ma30 cm. untilthe conclusion of requirements of the Atomic Energy Act 1 o of th a he Subcommittee will heer presentations by business each day
.cf 1954, as amended (the Act), and the t nd hold 6scussions with representatives of ne Subcommittee may meet in Executive Commission's rules and regulations.The ale NRC Staff. the nuclear industry various Session. with any ofits consultants who may Commission has made appropriate tihties. snd their consultants. and other be present. to explore and exchange their findings as required by the Act and the a
hterested persons prehminary opinions rege-ing matters which Commission's rules and regulations in 10 in edition. It may be necessary for the Subcommittee to hold one or more closed abould be considered dunt.g the meeting CFR Chapter I which are set forth in the At the conclusion of the Execuuve Session.
sessions for the purpose of empforing matters the Subcommittee will hear presentations by license amendment. Prior public notice involving prepnetary information. I have and bold 6scussions with representatives of of this amendment was not required determined,in accordance with Subsection the NRC Staff, their consultants, and other since the amendment does not involve a 10(d)of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
[ Pub 1.92-463) that. should such sessions be interested persons.
significant hazards consideration.
in edition. it may be.necessary for the De Commission has determined that regt. ired. It is necessary to close these Subcommittee to hold one or more closed the issuance of this amendment willnot sessions to protect proprietary information sessions for the purpose of exploring matters involvm8 proprietary information. I have result in any significant environmental See 5 t! S C. 552(cll41 Further information regarding topics determined,in accordance with Subsecuen impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4) an snvironmentalimpact to be discussed whether the meeting b o at. sh ds h e on be statement or negative declaration and lhas been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairmen's ruling on requests for the required. it is necessary to close these environmental impact appraisal need a
opportunity to present oral statements oeufons to protect proprietary information.
not be prepared in connection with
- nd the time allotted therefor can be see s tJ.S c. sszb(c!(41 issuance of this' amendment.
obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Further information regarding topics For further details with respect to this lthe cognizant Designated Federal to be discussed. whether the meeting action, see (1) the application for Employee. Mr. Peter Tam (telephone has been cancelled or rescheduled, the amendment dated June 28.1979,(2)
'202/634-1413) between 8:15 a.m. and Chairman's ruling on requests for the Amendment No. 36 to Ucense No. DPR-j 5-00 p.m EST.
opportunity to present oral statements 83, and (3) the Commission *a related D2ted. April 1.1980.
and the time allotted for the presentations can be obtained by a Safety Evaluation. All of these items are Advisory Committee Afanagement CBcer prepaid telephone call to the cognizant available fcr public inspection at the John C. Hnte.
ira ou eo.une ruaa us mi Designated Federal Employee. Mr.
Commission's Public Document Room.
l Elpidio G. Igne (telephone 202/634-3314) 1717 H Street. N.W., Washington. D.C.
.w o coot neo. aim between 8:15 a.m. and 5 00 p.m EST.
and at the Oswego County Office Building. 46 E. Bridge Street. Oswego.
Dated April 1.teso.
New York 13128. A copy ofitems (2) and Advlsory Committee on Reactor John C. Hoyle (3
y ob in d u n uest Advisory Coaunittee Afanagement Officer.
nere a d Conc e Structures; IN=*1a*W *Ma *** al Regulatory Commission. Washington.
Weeting ew,eo caec nos.4s.
D.C. 20555, Attention: Dircector, The ACRS Subcommittee on Concrete Division of Operating Reactors.
j and Concrete Structures wi!! hold a sneeling on April 22-23.1980 in Room (Docket,No. 50-220]
Dated at Betheads. Maryland, this 2sth day of March teso.
1167.1717 H St. NW., Washington. DC Niagars Mohawk Power Corp.;
to review " user needs" in structural issuance of Facility Ucense For ne Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
cngineering and the way in which these Amendment
%omas A.Ippolito.
eseds have been and are being met.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chief. Operating Reoefois Branch No. 3.
Notice of this meeting was published Commission (the Commission) has Division of 0perating Reactors.
March 19.1980.
In accordance with the procedures tasued Amendment No. 36 to Facility ya n. a saan en.s s.+ a us !
cutlined in the Federal Register on Operatica Ucense No.DPR-63 to saAmes coos 7sse s$.as s
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 6.
e J
o ATTACHMENT 2 ACRS SITE EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING April 22,1980 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attendees:
E OTHERS f
ACRS i
D. Moeller, Chairman P. Brennan, MES
.S. Lawroski F. Stetson, AIF J. Ebersole A.C. Kadaik, Yankee Atomic i
J. Ray P. Higgins, AIF R. F. Foster, Consultant K. Knuth, KMC J. Healy R. S. Boyd. KMC D. Orth C. Bantegui, EBASCO R. Wilson S. J. Milioti, AEP M. Steindler Edie Solomon, Shaw Pittman Potts & Trowbrid A. Grendon Saul Harris, EEI P. Tam, Federal Designated Employee Mike McGarry, Debevoise & Liberman Dale Hollar, NRC Irwin Speckler, Dames & Moore H. Singh, B. Grimes, NRR Robert M. Rader, Conner Mcare C. Goller I. M. Trostpin, L. L. Lam M. Ja gothian J. E. Howard, Boston Edison Co.
m Jam 2s H. Sniezek, IE E. L. Zebroski, EPRI-NSAC Barry Zalcman, NRR Robert F. Abbey, Jr. RES/RSR Celia Bantegui, EBASCO Ken Perkins, OEDO Ernie Murri, NUS Corp.
Bob Whitesel, EPRI, Wash. Office R. Breen, EPRI l
t
I
)
ACRS SITE EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING April 22, 1980 Schedule (Revised April 21,1980)
Executive Session 1:00 - 1:15 P.M.
Opening Statement - (D. Moeller) 5';Schedulechanges,ifany Subcommittee comments Discussion With NRC Staff 1.
Proposed Emergency Planning Rule 1:15 - 1 :50 P.M.
A.
Presentation - (M. Jamgochian and C. Goller) 1:50 - 2:20 P.M.
B.
Public comments panel -
(E. Howard, Boston Edison D. Knuth, KMC Inc.
R. Breen EPRI )
2:20 - 3:00 P.M.
C. Discussion
- BREAK *********
2.
'--3:15 - 3:45 P.M.
A.
Presentation - (B. Grimes) 3:45 - 4:30 P.M.
B.
Discussion Executive Session 4.30 - 5:30 P.M.
1.
Recommendations to be included in the ACRS letter to the Commission.
2.
Comments by C.C. Burwell on the siting policy report (NUREG-0625)
.