ML19329G175
| ML19329G175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/18/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329G176 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8007140074 | |
| Download: ML19329G175 (91) | |
Text
9
- s 1
J w
e u.
3
(
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(.~
3 4
STAFF PRESENTATION ON 5
FINAL RULEMAKING ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 6
PUBLIC MEETING 7
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 8
1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
9 Wednesday, June 18, 1980 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11 2:05 p.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission
(
14 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Commissioner RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 15 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 16 ALSO PRESENT.
17 L. BICKWIT H. HANRAHAN 18 H. SHAPAR K. CORNELL 19 K. GOLLER
- 3. GRIMES 20 M. JAMG0CHIAN R. BERNER0 fib g 21 J. McCONNELj K.
PERKINS 22 23
(,
24 25 840'3140 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, FQElffiDTRELE N flVflWXNS WACjHINGTON, D.C. 20024_L202 554-2346_ _,
J
e.es-2 1
E12CII2IEEE 2
CHAIRM AN AHEARNE:
This afternoon the Commission t'
3 meets to hear from the staff on the proposed final rule on 4
5 A very large amount of effort has gone into
- 6 developing this rule over the past year.
The staff has held 7
aany meetings and many workshops and more, I think to be 8
exact, around the country.
It has received a large number 9
of comments.
We.have gone through an advanced notice 10 proposed rule. ' We have the final rule here before us today.
11 This is not a meeting at which I believe the 12 Consission will be making a decision on the final rule.
We 13 still have an additional meeting I believe next week on it.
(
~
this as an example of 14 But I certainly am delighted to see 15 how a major rule can be moved forward both with a lot of 18 thought and careful work and also on a reasonable tine scaleo 17 So, let's see, Kevin, I guess you are speaking for 18 the EDO.
19 MR. CORNELL:
The only thing I have to add is that 20 we are working on setting up meeting with the industry and j
21 the state and local and special interest groups.
It is 22 scheduled currently for the 25th of June It is our 23 understanding that some time subsequent to that meeting the
(
24 Commission would make a decision on this rule.
]
25 I would also like to point out tha t backy,in 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
3 1
February FEKA raised a number of concerns about this rule.
2 Since that time we have had a series of very productive 3
asetings with FEMA staff.
About a week ago or several weeks 4
ago FEMA wrote a letter to the Commission saying that they 5
now support this rule for issuance, and it is a current 6
form.
There are a number of representatives from the FEMA 7
staff here and if you want to get into the issue we will be 8
available.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I assume that if one of you to said something that they disagree with they will either jump 11 or forever hold their silence.
12 MR. CORNELLs At this point anyway I will turn it 13 over to Mr. Go11er.
(
14 (Slide presentation - first slide. )
15 NR. GOLLERs Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with you 1
16 this af ternoon the staff's proposed version for the final or 17 effective rule on emergency preparedness.
18 With me at the table today are Mr. Brian Grimes, 19 Program Director of the Emergency Preparedness Program 20 Office in NRR and Mr. Mike Jamgochian from the Office of 21 Standards Development.
Other individuals who have 22 participated in the development of this rule are in the 23 audience and may be able to assist if any detailed questions
(,..
24 do come up.
25 Also present, as Mr. Cornell has already L
Al.DERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
c_
3 4
1 mentioned, is Mr. John McConnel from the Federal Emergency 2
Hanagement agency.
r-3 The staff has met before with the Commission Ieveral times on this rulemaking effort, most recently on 4
5 March 26th when we briefed the Commission on the major L
6 issues that had been identified by written comments and at 7
the workshop public meetings that were held on this 8
rulemaking in January.
9 I intend for this briefing to build on that to previous briefing.
I will provide you with a brief 11 background and chronology on this rulemaking effort and a 12 discussion of how the staff proposes to resolve the major 13 issues that were identified including comments and
(
14 recommendations by the ACRS and a brief overview of the 15 differences between the final rule as proposed by the staff 16 sad the proposed rule which was published for public comment 17 in December 1979.
18 If I could'have the next slide, please.
19 (Next slide.)
20
- 58. GOLLEHs As you can see from this slide on the 21 background chronology, this has been an expedited rulemaking 22 process as the Commission requested.
That has been one year :
23 from the advance notice of rulemaking to the final rule
(
24 presentation today.
It is especially true when you consider 25,
the complexity and the controversy involved in this major f
^
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
3-5 1
rulemaking effort.
2 CHAIR 3AN AHEARNE4 gather, Karl, in the future t
3 this will now be the norm for standards.
4 (Laughter) 5 MR. GOLLER:
On the contrary, this is something to 6
aspire to and hopefully do better.
7 You will notice the two entries on this slide 8
whereby the ACRS has participated in the review of this 9
rule.
I will have more to-say about this later in the 10 briefing.
11 Also indicated on the slide is the provisions for 12 the Commission meeting with the panels, public panels which, 13 as Mr. Cornell, indicated, as being arranged for June 25th.
\\
14 It is my understanding that the staff will also participate 15 in that meeting and will be expected to respond to any 16 questions or issues that migh t be raise'd at those panel l
' 17 discussions.
18 Can I have the next slide, please.
19 (Next slide.)
20 MR. GOLLER:
Many public comments were received on' 21 this rulemaking.
However, I think it is important to ZZ realize that all the significant issues were identified at 23 the workshops in January, and also, that general agreement
{
24 that emergency preparedness around nuclear power plants 25 should be improved, although there are some differences of
(_s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
_ _$WD W, @.W. REPORES SUILDING, WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 C!O2) 554 2346 _
s g
.o..
1 opiaion on just exactly how this should be accomplished.
j 2
If I can have the next slide, please.
i 3
(Next slide.)
4 MR. GOLLERa There are several important, very 5
recent developments relative to this rulemaking:
one 6
already mentioned, the ACRS review and comment which we vill,
7 get into a little more laters but also the recent 8
Senate / Souse Conference Report on the NRC's fiscal year '80 9
authorization bill.
This report and the proposed bill 10 itself have several references to emergency rulemaking and 11 provide some direct instructions or guidance to the 12 Commission on this subject.
13 We believe that the staff proposed final rule and 14 the Commission 's other ongoing planned activities in 15 emergency planning are fully responsive to the Conference 16 Report bill.
~
I'7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You are saying, Karl, then that 18 if one takes the Conference Report and the bill and matches 19 it a ninst our rule, in your judgment, the rule for those 20 parts of it that cover what the Conference Report covers, 21 those parts are in synchronization and agreement?
22 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE4 You could note, Karl, th a t it
(
24 is a little more than a Conference Report at this stage.
25 MR. GOLLER:
And bill.
t ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPCRTERS BUILDING. WAS;*:GTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
t 7
.o.
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
B o th the House and the Senate 2
have in fact passed the legislation that is' described in the 3
Conference Report and it remains, as far as I know, only for 4
a Presidential signature about which I can hardly see any 5
difficulty.
6 NR. GOLLER:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So I think we have the 8
legislation in eff ect bef ore us.
The fact that the '80 9
authorization has taken a very long time to come about 10 leaves us in the rare and fortunate circ'mstance that our u
11 reponse to the legislation, at least in this particular 12 circumstance, may be extraordinarily expeditious.
13 (Laughter) 14 HR. GOLLER:
Thank you.
The st.ide does indicate 15 several specific points that the Conference Report does make 16 relative to the emergency planning rulemaking.
It is also 17 my understanding that the Office of the General Counsel is 18 preparing a general analysis of this entire conference 19 report.
I have it on the basis of an oral communication 20 that they agree that this proposed rule is fully responsive 21 to the Conference Report.
22 If I could have the next slide, please.
23 (Next slide.)
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEa Karl, let me just ask.
You 25 set with the committee on the 5th, and I don't recall having
(..
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET S.W. REPORTEMS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (20lD 554-2345
8
.e..
I seen a letter from them.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, we got one on the 11th.
3 MR. GOLLER:
We have some extra copies of that.
I t
4 will be getting into this in some detail.
5 CONHISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, let me get a copy 6
from you before you run out of them.
7 (Copies of the letter distributed. )
8 NR. GOLLERs You do have a copy of the first 9
letter that they sent you on the first meeting in May as 10 part of the rulemaking package.
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that was part of 12 the staff paper.
13
- 58. GOLLER:
The next slide is a listing of the
(
1-4 major issues which were identified during the rulemaking 15 process.
These issues are all familiar to the Commission 16 and I plan to discuss each one separately to present the 17 staf f's proposed resolution 'or response on each and to 18 indicate what changes these involve from the proposed rule 19 to the final rule.
20 Can we have the next slide, please.
21 (Next slide.)
22 HR. GOLLER4 The proposed rule used the term NRC 23
" concurrence" in state and local emergency plannning and 1
24 required such concurrenc; for licensing and continued
(
25 operation of nuclear power plants.
N.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 6WL N f16MIZ6k MNiMRE1 D.@. E4 CEia)C3E0
9 1
The final rule as proposed by the staff would 2
replace this with an NRC finding on overall emergency 7..
3 preparedness which would consider FEMA findings on state and 4
local plans.
5 Note also that we would propose to include the 16 6
planning objectiies from the NUREG document 0654 which was 7
developwd in conjunction with FEMA.
We would include the 16 8
planning objectives from the NUREG document in the rule 9
itself.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I ask a question on that?
11 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs I notice that you called them 13 planning objectives.
But as I read it, it says "The
(
14 reactors must meet the f ollo wing objectives."
For example, 15
" Arrangements for requesting and effectively using a 16 system's resources have been made" et cetera.
I am just 17 questioning the term " objectives."
It almost sounds like
~
18 requirements.
19 MR. GOLLER:
Well, I think the term "o b j ec tiv e s "
20 was used because inherent in each of those is some latitude 21 by way of interpretation and detail which is set forth in 22 the criteria, the detailed criteria which are presented in 23 the NUREG document.
(
24 MR. GRIMES:
But the intent was to establish a 25 standard against which the preparedness would be measured
(.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
. O7m We O.W. AN SYlLDi$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
10 1
rather than using the term " concurrence"?
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I understand that.
3 HR. GRIBES:
I think the word " objective" came 7
4 from the NUREG-0654 usage as the planning objectives.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, but at that time they were 6
guidelines.
For example, let's just take any one of them.
7 As an objective, something that you are striving for, it
'd need not be there and you can still make a balanced judgment 9
that in the absence it is still acceptable.
If it were a 10 requirement it would have to be there.
Is that a 11 distinction that is in f act th e re.
12 HR. GRIdES:
It is intended to be a requirement to 13 the rule.
(
14 HR. JAMGOCHIANs By putting it in the regulation 15 it then becomes a requirement.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs I was wondering.
17 ER. GOLLER Mr. Chairman, I think you have put 18 your finger on a problem in terminology which is the result 19 of the evolution of this rule, and I think that perhaps 20 changing that word would be a clarification of the intent.
21 HR. SHAPAR:
I had a comment on it.
We have 22 performance objectives and rules and should require that 23 those performance objectives be met.
This is fairly common.
24 MR. BICKWITs Civil penalty actions would lie if
, 25 the objective were not complied with.
(-
{
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, E
ca.g mm e~a ss4.zus
11 1
MR. GOLLERs Well, I don't think that that is really a'propriate in this case because these objectives 2
p 3
pertain to the state and local government plans.
To that 4
extent there would be no possibility for any civil action 5
other than the once inherited rule against the licensee.
6 3R. BICKWICs How about against the licensee for 7
operating out of compliance?
8 HR. GOLLER:
That of e se is specifically 9
spelled out in the rule.
10 MR. BICKWIC:
I see.
The enforcement mechahism 11 you contemplate, and the only enforcement mechanism, is the 12 shutdown as specified in the rule?
13 HR. GOLLER Yes, with the associated procedures k
1-4 that would be involved.
15 HR. SHAPARs It is not necessarily a shutdown is 16 it?
It could be a modification of the license.
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE I suppose one could 18 conceive of circumstances where you might be inclined to 19 levy a civil penalty.
I agree it wouldn 't strike ne that is 20 normally a way you deal with this.
21 NR. BICKWIKs It might be something we would want 22 to clarify.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE When we say objectives, 24 does that mean they are requirements, the answer is clearly 25 yes.
Take a short one, No. 6, provisions exist for prompt
/(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f~0RQf~6DTR fLO, RM OMi@ LNG, WASHINGTON, D.C. 33024 c321554-2346
~
12 1
communications among principal response organizations to 2
emergency personnel and to the public.
Now, if you get a 3
plan where that isn 't the esse, it doesn't wash.
And if yo r
4 had a plan where it was and then somebody decided, oh, hell, 5
let's tear up all the. prompt communications facilities, why 6
the plan is now deficient under the regulations and again it 7
doesn't wash.
So they are requirements.
8 Now, what prompt communications may mean for a 9
particular site and set of local 7overnnents in a given 10 state is not defined here, and there there is a certain 11 amount of cut and fit to suit the circumstances I judge.
12 CHAIBHAN AHEARNE:
One of the reasons for raising 13 the question was because at a later point where ve talk 14 about the 15-minute warning it is also called a planning 15 objective, and I was trying to establish what the term meant.-
16 HR. GRIMES:
I think it is called a design l'7 objective, which was intended to be comparable to the ---
18 CHAIRMAN AHEABNEs That is different than a
^
19 planning than a planning objective.
I vill get all these 20 words straight sooner or later.
21 MR. SHAPAR:
Well, if the confusion !s the word 22 "o b j e c tiv e," that word certainly can be changed.
23 MR. GOLLER:
As I said, I think we should consider 24 doing that because there might be some clarification 25 resulting from that.
You have a good point.
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, CD7th QUC[]ih S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 c02) 554 2345
13 1
I would like to go on.
2 COMMISIONER KENNEDYs Before you do, the note on 3
page 31, the footnote, the objectives to which we have just 4
been referring are addressed by " specific criteria in 5
Does that mean.to imply the specific criteria 6
in NUREG-0654 are incorporated by reference here?
7 NR. GRIMES:
That was not the intent.
8 ER. GOLLERs No, sir, it does not.
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs 0654 you meant to treat as 10 a regulatory guide, equivanent to a reg guide for the moment?
11 M8. GRIMES:
Yes.
12 MR. GOLLER:
At present that is a NUREG report, a 13 technical report.
It is our intent to develop a guide which i
14 vill, among other things, incorporate most of the
~
15 inforastion that is in that NUREG report today.
16 COHEISSIONER KENNEDYs Okay.
17 MR. GOLLER:
Relative to this incorporation of the 18 planning objectives in the rule itself I would like to make 19 two observations.
One of the requirements in the 20 legislation, the authorization bill legislation was to 21 establish by rule standards for state plans, and it is this 22 point that we feel vould be responsive to that legislative 23 directive.
lj (
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
How does this rule now mesh 25 with FEMA's proposed rule or about to be proposed rule?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, ARQfETTd Ek??A RM MILDINik WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (2021554-2346
Jg
- r.
1 MR. JAMG0CHIAN:
They are in parallel.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ken.
3 MR. PERKINS:
Excuse me just a second.
I am Ken 4
Perkins in ED0's office.
In the letter that we received 5
from General Counsel of FEMA they state that they believe 6
that we should go'shead with our rule and" that it is 7
consistent with the rule that they are proposing.
The two 8
are compatible.
9 The procedures that they are establishing are 10 parallel to those that we have in our rule, and what we call 11 planning objectives that we incorporate in our rule are also 12 incorporated verbatim in their rulemaking.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE4 Ka rl, if th e bill sa ys 14 these are standards for an emergency plan, why that is a 15 possible word.
16 MR. GRIMES:
Instead of objectives, yes.
17 MR. GOLLER:
The other observation that I wanted 18 to make relative to incorporating the planning objectives in 19 the rule is that the Commission has pending before it 20 SECY-80-261 which would respond to two petitions, one of
.21 which requests deferring this rulemaking until the planning 22 objectives and criteria for state and local plans are 23 reconsidered.
24 If I could have the next slide, please.
25 (N ext slide. )
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
~
15 1
HR. GOLLEPs This concurrence issue which we have 2
been discussing is closely related to the naxt one on the l'
3 NRC/ FEMA responsibilities and relationship.
There were many comments on this subject b'cause the NRC/ FEMA relationship 4
e 5
and FEMA's responsibilities evolved during this rulemaking 6
process.
7 The final rule as proposed by the staff and the 8
accompanying supplemental information to the rule would make 9
this relationship and the respective responsibilities of the 10 two agencies quite clear, and we believe therefore would 11 offset then most of the comments which were received in this 12 area.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I gather that that 1<4 clarification also is consistent with the authoriration bill?
15 MR. GOLLER4 Yes, sir, and is the result of 16 extensive coordination and communication between the two l'7 agencies which is specifically what the authorization bill 18 directed ocr?tr.
19 Can I have the next slide, please.
20 (Next slide.)
21 MR. GOLLERs This next issue on state and/or local 22 capability for 15-minute notification of the public was one 23 of the more controversial issues.
Much of this controversy 24 was due to confusion and misunderstanding of the 25 requirements.
Note that the ACRS commented on this issue ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
16 1
and recommended consideration of a staged notification 2
system.
I will have a little more to say about that later 3
when we discuss all of the ACRS comments specifically.
4 The final rule proposed by the staff would clarify 5
that licensees must notify state and local governments 6
within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency and that the 7
state and local government must then have the capability to 8
notify the public in 15 minutes af ter this notification by 9
the licensee.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I wasn 't really sure reading it 11 in the two sections in the beginning and then in the rule 12 what provision you have in for decision time on the part of 13 the state and local officials.
14 3R. GRIMES:
That is included in the 15 minutes.
15 The 15 minutes is intended to specify that there shall be 16 some sort of system and also is intended to specify a very I'7 short decision chain.
It does not require extended 18 consultation before a decision can be made but rather is 19 based on preagreed fo rmulas.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So in that there is no 21 specificaton of here is how rapid the notification system 22 must be other than it is something short of no longer than 23 15 minutes.
l 24 ER. GRIMES:
The systems that we have seen would l
l 25-be essentially instantaneous or a minute or two type of l
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, Nrum_fr 7T.~Tuwmsmn N rva r;?;n smtm
17 1
activation signaling once th e decision was made.
2 MR. GOLLER:
Well, actually it was our thinking
" dat most of that 15 minutes is for the decision process, 3
t g
4 and that beyond that it doesn't e. mount to much more than 5
pushing buttons.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So I think what you are saying 7
is that what the rule ends up requiring is there be a 8
system, a set of procedures in a system that would enable 9
the public to be notified within 30 minutes of the licensee 10 declaring the emergency; is that correct?
i 11 MB. GOLLERs Yes.
And also that that no tification 12 is a notification to the effect that a problem exists and 13 that they should take some prescribed action probably that i
14 of tuning into a radio station also prescribed to receive 15 further directions and instructions on what to do under the 16 particular circumstances that exist.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEABNE:
Was there much of a discussion 18 in the' workshops or the comments nc; so much on whether or 19 not those requirements should be there but rather on the l
20 numerical value of the time?
In other words, was there a 21 debate on whether it should be 15 minutes or 30 minutes.
22 MB. GRIMES:
There was no close argument on 15 23 versus 30.
There was a debate on whether there should be a 24 system or whether there were indeed several hours available l
25 to perform the notification by door-to-door means.
Another ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 64
...1 6.
18 1
f acet of the discussion was whether the system should just 2
be required close to the plant and door to door and longer 3
term consunication be allowed farther away.
('
4 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
What were the resolutions of 5
those kinds of questions?
6 HR. GRIMES:
The staff, as we discussed in the 7
supplemental information to the rule now, believes that it 8
is prudent to get as much lead time as possible, although it 9
may take several hours to develop.
The actual realization 10 that a very serious situation exists itself may come several 11 hours1.273148e-4 days <br />0.00306 hours <br />1.818783e-5 weeks <br />4.1855e-6 months <br /> into the accident.
So that only a relatively short 12 time, an hour or two, may be available to actually effect 13 protective action, and sometimes shorter than that, for the 14 public.
15 Typically evacuation times, if that is the action 16 of choice rather than sheltering, evacuation times average 17 about two to three hours and can be in high population sites 18 up to ten hours for sectors around the plant.
We believe 1
19 that the immediate notification vill provide a large number 20 of additional cases where we do have the option to take 21 protective action.
In a precautionary mode if you forecast
~
22 within an hour or so you may indeed have significant 23 releases.
24 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
If you were to be talking with 25 some state governments or local government people and they were asking you, if this rule goes into place as it is hov
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 1
l lb 1
would you expect or hope to recommend that they put in place 2
a system to be able to handle this once the information 3
comes in and before they push the button or switch or
]
4 whatever is required?
Would you hope then to have sort of a 5
check list in which, depending upon what the licensee has 6
told them, they go down and find here is the appropriate 7
varning to give?
8 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
l 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs dr would you hope that they 10 would have in place a system by which an individual or a set 11 of individuals would be able by a conference call to meet on 12 that and reach a decision on more of an ad hoc basis?
13 MB. GRIMES:
The answer is both I guess.
You must
(
14 have the capability to act immediately.
If the licensee 15 says there is a very serious problem and we expect th a t 16 there may be a release in the next few minutes or hour we 17 think the initial action of notification should be carried 18 out.
19 If there are many hours available and it is a 20 slow 13 developing situation then that information would be 21 taken into account by the outside authorities and there 22 would be a decision as to whether the actions recommended by 23 the plant were conservative enough or whether additional
(
24 precautions or measures were warranted.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Then you were be recommended is.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 6 Rt71 LTiX.TRUKMN4Tfd WAMfXiju@No 8,@,8133 (9'M N
20 I
some threshold, perhaps a relatively high threshold for the 2
immediate use of that 15-minute system?
,e 3
MR. GRIMES:
Certainly in our four emergency 4
classes the general emergency would warrant immediate 5
no tifica tion.
Our initial guidance set also the site a rea 6
energency in the second highect class should have~ prompt 7
no tifica tion.
We have received a number of comments on that 8
and we are relooking as to whether all the items, in the site 9
area emergency warrant notification.
One way of handling 10 that is to redefine some of those items out of the site area 11 class, or one could divide the second worse class into two 12 parts, or something *like that.
13 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE s Why would you notify on a
'(
14 site emergency?
15 MR. GRIMES:
A site area emergency where there may 16 indeed be effects immediately around the plant that would l'7 include situations which would indeed warrant telling people 18 to at least to stay inside around the facility.
19 COMMISSIONER RENDRIEs Surely not ten miles away.
20 MR. GRIMES:
Probably not ten miles away.
In that 21 case we do include in the supplementary inf ormation that it 22 is acceptable to have a staged capability within the 23 notification system; in other words, so that a decision
(,
24 could be made to use only part of the notification system.
25 There are some arguments in the other direction that once
(
ALOERSON RE*ORTING COMPANY,INC,
21 1
there is an emergency at the plant you might be better off 2
to try to establish an official link of comnunication 3
through notification of everyone around the plant and 4
getting then to tune in to the radio station with the 5
correct informatica rather than allowing rumors to go on the 6
basis of near-site people being asked to do something.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKI:
What are the expected 8
means of notification?
9 MR. GRIMES:
There are several that have been 10 iden tified as possibilities.
The only system that has 11 actually been purchased that I know of so far is for around l
l 12 Diablo Canyon which would be sirens primarily.
There are 13 also individual radio inits which can be used in conjunction i
1-4 with the NOAA weather slert system which is used in some 15 areas in the Midi 16 COMMISSIONER GIlfMSKI How many sirens would 17 there be?
I assume this applies to a 10-mile circle roughly 18 speaking?
19 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
It would vary with the terrain 20 and population.
I think we are talking on the order of 60 l
21 to 100.
1 22 MB. GOLLER:
But it might also be combinations c' 23 these systems depending upon the population density.
24 MR. GRIMES:
Sirens in dense areas and tone alert l
t l
25 systems for remote houses.
k_
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, i
m1
.,.,a
22 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY What is it the public does 2
in response to a siren tone?
3 MR. GRIMED:
They turn on the radio and probably 4
the initial information they would get is advice to stay 5
indoors if they live in certain areas probably.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs The siren simply alerts 7
them to turn on the adio?
8 MR. GRIMES:
It alerts them.
It does not tell 9
them to move.
It will be required of course to have a good 10 public information program to educate people as to what the 11 expected actions would be.
12 CHAI3HAN AHEARNE:
Would you envision the use of a 13 siren or tone alert, or whatever it is, in the periodic
(
14 drills?
15 MR. GRIMES:
Yes, at least activation of some part 16 of that system would be in the exercise.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is a public information 18 program contemplating informing the public at all about what 19 it is they are being warned about?
20 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In what way?
22 MR. GRIMES:
In terms of the basic nature of 23 radiation, for example, and the fact tha. staying inside 24 does previde a large degree of protection against releases
'25 from-the site.
k.
ALDERSoN REPoP,T,NG COMPANY,INC, l
23
~
.o..
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKIs Is this part of a plan 2
that we would be reviewing or FEMA would be reviewing as a 3
public information program?
(
4 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
5 MR. GOLLERs It is required.
Public information 3
is specifically required by this rule.
7 MR. GRIMES:
It would be a joint effort by the 8
licensee and the state and local people.
It may vary from 9
place to place as to who actually distributes the 10 information, whether it is the utility with utility bills or 11 the more credible source is the county or state providing 12 this information.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
To what depth does
(
1-4 approval, aut..ority or responsibility on the part of the NRC 15 reach in this public information planning, the fact tha t 18 there has been one prepared or the specific character of the 17 elements of it?
18 MR. GRIMES:
I believe the standard we have put 19 forth in at least the NUREG report, which was our detail 20 guidance, was that peop'.; aroun ~ the plant would be given at 21 least a reasonable ' hance
! at least annually receiving i
22 information on the nature ;f '..e hazard.
Exactly what the i
23 program should contain FEMA is taking the lead on, the
(
24 public information program developmen t.
We will be working 25 with them and taking their advice on the adequacy of the k.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, m
4 6.. t N
1
24 1
information program.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs The fundamental character 7-3 of the program, the.public information program then la a 4
FEMA responsibility?
5 MR. GRIMESs Yes.
6 3R. JANG0CHIANs For your information this kind of 7
thing has gone on for the last three years I believe in the 8
State of Maine.
They have sent out simple kinds of basic 9
information with the bill on a yearly basis giving them 10 information as to what is radiation and the idea of 11 sh elte ring.
Also at the bottom it would give radio stations 12 that they would' turn to in the case of an emergency and also 13 telephone numbers that they could call for additional, more 1-4 detailed emergency preparedness information.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs That I presume we would not 16 visualize as being promotional, although I have heard some 17 characterize it that way.
18 HR. JAMG0CHIANs I have not.
19 C05NISSIONER KENNEDYs I would not myself.
I am 20 just wondering if we tsve reached that conclusion.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEAnnis I think it depends on how it is 22 vritten.
23 HR. JAMG0CHIANs Right.
The way it h.s been l
24 vritten is the State Utility Commission and the licensee sat 25 down and decided what would be in it.
J l'
l AI.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, M
l 25 1
CHAIRF.AN AHEARNE:
Yes.
As I recall, Mr. Bradford 2
was one of the members of that State Utility Commission.
3 NR. JAMG0CHIANs Yes, sir.
4 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
I notice your last itta here.
5 This is now a design objective.
To reiterate the 6
cla rifica tion, is that a requirement?
7 MR. GRINESs We are putting together detailed 8
guidance on acceptability with FEM A.
There would be a 9
guidance memorandum from FEMA headquarters to its regions 10 providing some rules of thumb for design and providing that 11 after the system is in a statistical survey be taken to 12 determine whether people are hearing the signal and 13 improvements will be made based on that.
(
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs That is interesting and useful, 15 but it doesn't answer the question I asked as to whether or 16 not the 15 minutes is a requirement when you describe it as 17 a design objective.
18 MR. GOLLERa Well, the 15-minute notification is a 19 requirements, but perhaps this is a good example of why the 20 word " objective" is not that far off the mark in that what 21 needs to be accomplished in 15 minutes is notification of 22 the public.
The objective is close to 100 percent, but 23 exactly what that fraction should be was a subject of 24 considerabia comment and discussion durinc the rulemaking 25 process and in comments.
The design objective is to reach ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
26 1
something like 90 or as close to 100 percent as possible.
2 It is just not possible to achieve perfection.
t' 3
MR. GRIMES:
It is basically a warning system.
4 which you design to have a signal available to peopre 5
particularly and one outside.
6 CHAIR 3AN AHEARNE:
You have got a slight fuzziness 7
on the time.
8 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And you have got a slight to fuzziness on the percentage reached which is completely 11 understandable.
But how vill you determine whether or not a 12 particular plan is acce ptable?
Is that a judgment decision?
13 MR. GRIMES:
It is going to be a judgment decision.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would that be FEMA's judgment 15 decision?
16 MR. GRIMES:
The adequacy of the off-site 17 notification would be FEMA 's judgment.
Since it is a 18 radiation related need we would assist in establishing the 19 standard, the 15 minutes.
Whether the particular system is 20 adequate we would rely on FEMA to determine.
21 CONMISSIONER GILINSKY But doesn't NRC at some 22 point make the decision about adequacy as it relates to the 23 licensing process?
24 MR. GRIMES:
I should have said rather than 25 perhaps rely on would heavily weigh in FEMA 's opinion in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 6 FMIV41X4 MHC%RA D.& A A N
27 1
area.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Why did you underline the 3
word " capability"?
Why do you stress th'a t, as opposed to 4
what?
5 MR. GRIMES:
To actually proving that 100 percent 6
of the people are notified or actually using the system in 7
every energency.
In other words, for lower-level emergency 8
classes you would not use the system.
You are not required 9
to notify the public within 15 minues.
Also, the state and 10 local people have the final authority of pushing the button 11 for the notification.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You are drawing a distinction 13 between requirement to notify and having the capability to 14 notify?
15 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
So it is conceivable that the 16 plant would recommend this and the state or local government 17 would not notify that.
We are trying to eliminate that 18 possibility through pre-agreed emergency plans.
l 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You, I think, are trying to 20 make it so that that notification is a reasoned judgment on 21 behalf of the state and local officials---
22 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: ---rather than putting the
~
24 burden on the licensee to make that judgment.
The licensee 25 does the notification.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
e 43 1
MR. GRIMES:
And they also make a recommendation 2
as to the seriousness and the nature of the situa tion.
t' COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I wonder if it really comes 3
k 4
out that way?
If the standard tha t you are aiming for is 5
that within 15 minutes of hearing from the licensee you are 6
going to make a decision and then perform public 7
notification it sounds to me as though the decision gets 8
made by whoever the duty officer is next to the buttom that 9
rings the sirens.
10 He will have to spent part of his 15 minutes 11 dictating a piece of tape to the local radio stations and 12 making those telephone calls.
The licensee calls him and 13 says, " Listen, I have had to call a site emergency over 14 here.
We have a little release going on from waste tank No.
15 5."
The guy on the other end at the police barracks or 16 wherever it is says, "Geeze, what will I do, press the 17 button?"
The licensee will say, "It is your ball game, 18 buddie," and do back to his business which is keeping the 19 site crowd in shape.
The guy on the buttom isn't going to 20 have any choice but to push it.
So the bell is going to go 21 off every time and go out through the f ull ten-mile 22 emergency planning zone every time there is a notification 23 from the licensee of the top two classes of emergency I 24 think because there just isn't time is there for any M
responsible state officers to say, valt a minute. '4ha t does t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
29
.e.-
l 1
that mean in terms of doses?
Should we notify everybody or 2
just people down in the southwest quadrant or maybe just 3
people out to a mile and a half or so.
c 4
If you are going to all that in 15 minutes why 5
nobody arch closer than the first cross-roads up the line 6
are going to be involved in the decision.
You might as well '
7 put the buttom beside the supervisor's desk and tell him 8
every time he gets a site emergency or above he bangs it.
I' 9
don't think that would be a good thing to do because I don't 10 think it is necessarily the best thing to do, to ring bells 11 all over the neighborhood on each one of these occasions.
i 12 Some will require it, hopefully not very many, but I think a 13 lo t more of them won't.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKI:
Let me just ask a question 15 that goes along with that.
What do we expect by way of 16 advice from the utility, from the operator when he 17 telephones?
18 MR. GOLLER:
Well, that is one of the points I was 19 going to make, Commissioner Gilinsky.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the licensee is 21 going to be the only one who is in a position to tell the 22 kind of people you are going to reach in 15 minutes what to 23 do.
You are not going to have Governors and state radiation 24 officers considering the matter.
You are going to have, you 3
know, the civil def ense night duty officer.
!l(
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
30 1
3R. GOLLNER:
What you describe could certainly 2
happen, but it is our intent that, first off, the licensee 3
sake a recommendation to the' body that he is notifying, and, 4
secondly, and probably most importantly, that there vill be 5
coordination, cooperation and agreements in advance which 8
vill establish different levels of emergencies and 7
appropriate actions.
8 CONHISSIONER HENDRIE.
Let me point out it has 9
been a year and some months since Three Mile Island blev up to for us one Friday morning.
We have talked to each other 11 about how we were going to set for the operation of our own 12 response center the guidance criteria so that duty officers 13 and early arriving officers who get there in advance of the 14 poor chairman who has to run everything ad hoc would know 15 what to do.
16 So far as I can.see every time anybody sits down 17 to write out those emergency guidelines which would start 18 out and say, you know, define all the kinds of emergencies, 19 so you run your finger down and find a class 42, and it has 20 this, that and you do the other thing.
We haven't been able 21 to do that.
I think the one thing that keeps coming through 22 to me is I think about those kinds of matters and how I 23 would try to frame that kind of pre-agreed to guidance, and 24 sy God it is difficult because every one of those 25 occurrences out there is going to have different ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
m_
31 1
characteristics, and you just have the feeling that it is 2
going to be very hard to reasonably cover those things with 3
a lot of pre-set guidelines so that everything runs click 4
clack, click clack like some sort of a rely matrix in an 1
5 automatic machine.
6 You know, one of the benefits as well as one of I
l l
7 the handicaps of having human beings involved in these 8
affairs is that there are thinking mechanisms built into us 9
and we are capable of receiving inputs, making judgments and to coming to decisions.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKI:
Doesn't this go back to l
l 12 the point that Brian was making that what he is talkinc 13 about here is in effect the physical capability to notify in 14 a certain period of time?
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You see that is one of the 16 reasons I asked my question of what the decision time was.
1'7 I felt it vss f airly clear the 15-sinute requirement on th e 18-licensee to notify, and it is fairly clear that 15 or 19 whatever the time is, once a decision is made by state and 20 local, then notificaton, but I was a little uneasy about the 21 decision time in between.
22 CONNISSIONER KENNEDY:
I didn't get the impression 23 there was any.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There isn't.
25 COHHISSIONER HENDEIE:
That is right.
The real ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
32 1
question I guess I am hammer away at and not very accurately l
2 to is just that on e,.Tohn.
Is it, all things considered,
)
3 the best kind of configuration to compel a system in which 4
decisons of this kind are going to have to be made in 15 5
minutes along with implementing certain mechanical steps 6
like getting the v'ord to the radio stations about what to 7
say when people call up or when people listen and pressing 8
the siren buttoms and whatever else is done.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs But does the rule compel 10 the notification in 15 minutes?
My impression is it did noto 11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs But the rule does though.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
For these purposes the 13 answer is yes.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What Karl's aasver was is the 15 rule compels a system to be in place where the system is 16 capable of going from licensee to public in 30 minutes.
The 17 lic.msee must be able to notify in 15 minutes.
It says, 18 "The design objective shall be to have the capability to 19 essentially complete the notification of the public within 20 about 15 minutes af ter the notification by the licensee."
21 COHNISSIONER GILINSKI:
As I understood Brian, he 22 was saying when maybe finding out sometime after the onset 23 of an accident and so on, that he was trying to deal with 24 the worst case in effect in setting up this sort of a 25 physical capability.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
33 1
CONNISSIONER HENDRIE4 But if you did that, Vick, 2
you would have the capability for notification within 15 3
minutes, or if you like ten, or something like that, after a 4
decision that notification of the public was necessary.
5 That is not what is proposed.
What is proposed is a system 6
which has the decisionmaking process built into it able to 7
work within 15 minutes if that is the way it turns out.
8 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKI:
If the system determines 9
that is what needs to be done.
What I wanted to ask was 10 would it violate the sense of the rule if in some 11 circumstances the state followed John's advice here.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Said "Thanks very much.
I 13 am not going to hit the buzzer."
That would be within your 14 proposition.
The point I am making is it isn't going to be 15 the " State" which has: connotations of Stately Governors and 16 radiation health officers in the State Department of 17 Health.
It is going to be 'ome poor night clerk.
18 C05HISSIONER GILINSKI.
Whoev'er instetxts that 19 night clerk, and I expect it would be more than a night 20 clerk, is going to tell him to press the ten-mile radius 21 button if he gets a report of the sort that you just 22 described about a small leak in one of the waste tanks.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We don 't at least in this rule, i
24 as far as I see, make a judgment as to what class must be 25 automatically notifiad.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, N AM'2lTTFMdT.RfDIN4ffrik
x DW 35 1
MR. GRIMES:
Well, the first call he may not have 2
information as to the relative magnitude.
In other words, 3
he may not know how many milliress or rens would be at a 4
particular location.
He would just at that early point most 5
likely say we may have a release within a few minutes or 6
there has been a release started of this magnitude.or that 7
magnitude which would warrant at least notification or at 8
least telling people to stay inside in the first couple of 9
miles.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Who ends up being legally 11 liable for damages caused in a response that turned out not 12 to be needed?
13 C3HMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or one that turned out to.
14 be needed.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
For example, quite often one of 18 the issues the cities have to wrestle with is a charge that l
17 a fire truck on the way to a false alarm crashed into 18 someone and killed them or badly damaged the car or 19 something.
In this case who is liable if the trigger is 20 sent se people begin to evacuate and somebody gets hurt or 21 killed and it wasn't needed?
22 MR. GOLLER:
I think we will defer to one of the 23 attorneys at the table for that legal question.
I 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
All right, you are the 25 sc3.ff's lawyer, Howard.
Defend him.
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, h_
30 1
MR. SHAPAR Be glad to.
It depends on the tort 2
law of the state.
In some states you have sovereign 3
municipal immunity from suits of that kind.
In other 4
states, which is a modern trend, you don't have that kind of 5
immunity.
In some states they may be responsible as a 6
astter of tort law.
~
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But as we just finished 8
discussing here, the licensee makes the recommendation for 9
the action.
Is the licensee liable?
10 HR. SHAPARs He may be under the applicable tort
- 11 law of that state.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It doesn't flow directly from I
13 our rules?
14 MR. SHAPAR:
I think not.
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEa Let's get down to 16 fundamental issues, Howard.
How do Commissioners stand on 17 this?
l 18 (Laughter) t I
19 HR. BICKW IT s Why don't I answer that one.
20 (Laughter) 21 MR. BICKWIT I think you are all right.
I think 22 under the Federal Tort Claims Act the understanding has been 23 that when you are functioning in a uniquely governmental
(
24 capacity you are free from tort liability.
25 MR. SHAPARs There may be some question as to the i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
?7 1
discretionary exemption of the Federal Tort C1t.ims Act, but 2
I agree with the conclusica that if I were a Commissioner I 3
wouldn't worry about it too much.
4 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKIs Does that change your view 5
here?
6 (Laughter) 7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE Every little bit helps, 8
Vick.
9 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
I was just wondering whether 10 there were any pressures one way or the other placed on the 11 licensee.
12 MR. SHAP AR s You can ask that question about the 13 multifarious kinds of regulations that you are promulgating I4 all the time, and there has never been a suit that I am 15 aware of.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What was the adjective you used?
17 HR. SHAPARs
" Nefarious".
18 (Laughter) 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We don't promulgate that kind.
20 MR. GRIMES:
I might also note that the insurance 21 companies after Three Mile Island put out a good deal of 22 money and the utility insurance covered that.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Yes.
Go ahead.
24 MR. GOLLER:
Before we leave this issue and move l
25 on to the difficult ones ---
(_
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
33 1
(laughter)
I would just like to observe 2
NR. GOLLER 3
again that on. this subject of the capability for 15-minute
,e 4
not*fication the Commission has an action pending before it, 5
another petition, to delete the 15-minute notification 8
requirement from the rule and/or have a hearing on this 7
requirement.
The staff's recommendations on this are 8
contained in the same SECY document that I referred to, 261.
9 Can we have the next slide then.
10 (Next slide.)
11 COHNISSIONER HENDRIEs Karl, let me ask you a 12 question.
Suppose you get a Governor who says people are 13 not going to order public actions in an emergency on behalf 14 of the state of whatever without me knowing about it and 15 directs that the licensee calls' reporting emergencies route 16 through to his office.
What then?
17 MR. GRIMES:
If he can be available and do it in 18 15 minutes I guess that is all right.
We are requiring 19 parallel notification of local officials as well, and in 20 some situations they may decide to act on their own even 21 though the official word does not come in a timely manner.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Ken.
23 MR. PERKINS:
I would like to suggest a point of 24 clarification.
I think perhaps our discussion has confused f
l 25 the design objective of the system with actual l
L ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, N runt
39 1
implementation of this system.
What we have said in the 4
2 rulemaking is two 15-minute criteria for which the system is er 3
to be designed; that the capability exists for notification 4
of state and locals withln 15 cy the licensee and of the 5
public by state and locals within 15 minutes.
6 However, we cannot set a requirement on the state and l' cals for implementing 'that within 15 minutes.
7 o
8 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
In any given case.
9 MR. PERKINS:
That is correct.
10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But you are proposing to 11 require them to arrange their aff airs so that the number of I
l 12 people that they call within the state and local group and 13 the amount of consultation that they es a have amonest 14 themselves is very limited.
15 MR. PERKINSa But they hace addressed this problem 16 beforehand.
17 CONNISSIONER HENDRIE:
No, no, th a t the amount of l
18 consultation that they can in fact have is limited.
19 MR. PERKINS:
But they can make the decision with 20 a minimum amount of consultation.
That does not preclude 21 them from getting more in a particular case.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY Are you saying that their 23 15 minutes does not begin at the time they have been
(
24 notified?
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs It does for these purposes k-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
40 i
1 of narrowing the system.
2 MR. GRIMES:
What we are specifying is that ther 3
have a decision chain which would perhaps go to the county 4
executive or some single official in the state from the duty l i
5 officer for that decision, and he is empowered to make the 1
6 decision to notify the public and to advise protective i
7 actions.
If he in that particular circumstance decided that '
8 that action was not warranted there is nothing that would 9
prevent him from getting additional people to consult with 10 before he gave the okay to do that.
But we want to avoid 11 the situation where there is a required consultation on 12 behalf of 20 state people before the system can be actuated.
13 COHNISSIONER GILINSKIs As I understand what you 14 are saying is if the state gets a call from the utility 15 saying that all hell has broken loose and the utility thinks 16 everybody better get out of the way the state should have 17 the physical capability to notify people.
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And the decisional 19 capability as well as the physical capability.
20 MR. SHAPAR:
They are not required to accept th e 21' licensee's recommendation.
That implies a judgment-making 22 process.
23 COH5ISSIONER GIIINSKI Right, but that doesn't 24 mean that they would follow that procedure in other 25 instances.
i
+
ALDER $oN 9EPoRTING COMPANY, INC, OED (15EITE RW. RTAINTJ) MIEl2!& WA@HINGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
41 1
MR. JAMG0CHIAN:
It might be that their emergency 2
plan shows, their emergency plan shows that it can be done 3
in 15 minutes.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKI:
Right.
5 MR. BICKWIT:
May I ask a question on that?
The 6
design objective says that the plan must show that the state 7
can inform the public within 15 minutes.
The design 8
objective is not a requirement.
Is that what you said, Karl?
i 9
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
He already said that was a 10 requirement.
11 MR. CRIMES:
It is.
12 HR. BICKWIT I thought you differentiated between 13 the design objective and the requirement that was contained i
14 in Appendix E.
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs That was just a little dust-16 he was throwing up because he went around the corner there.
17 (Laughter) 18 ER. GOLLER:
There is some possibility for some 19 interpretation of what some of these objectives are.
They 20 are not that explicit.
Fifteen minutes, however, is 21 explicit.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
No, that is fine.
We use design 23 objective elsewhere in the rules but it is not considered to 24 be a requirement.
3 MR. GOLLER:
As I pointed out before, perhaps the k.
[-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, L
k.
d2
.e.
1 word " objective" is ---
2 ER. BICKWIT I know.
I understand that.
I 3
thought you were differentiating between objective and 4
design objective and you are not.
5 MR. GOLLER:
No.
6 MR. GRIMES:
We want to make it clear that if you 7
do an exercise and you are not able to notify all of the 8
public within exactly 15 minutes that you are not out of 9
compliance with the regulation.
10 CONNISSIONER HENDRIEs There is explicit 11 recognition in the language in the proposed rule that an 12 absolute hundred percent notification of every individual 13 within the planning zone is in f act not required.
It is 1-4 recognized as probably an impossibility.
Your objective is 15 to come as close to it as you can.
16 MR. GRIMESs We designed the system to come close 17 to it.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If in fact an accident 19 occurs and the state has been notified within the 15 minutes 20 prescribed for the licensee and does not undertake 21 notification of the public and it is later determined that
^
22 the circumstances were indeed such as to warrent it having 23 done so, who now is in violation of the regulations and what
(
24 is the practical effect of that?
25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The state.
We will hit k.
1 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, ED7th 0TRS. S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2023 564 2346
43 1
them with a civil penalty.
2 (Laughter) l 3
NR. GOLLER:
I think that is basically a legal 4
ques tion.
I doubt if anybody is in violation.
5 NR. SHAPAR:
I assume that the requirement was to 8
have a plan and have the capability of doing it.
We judge 7
the plan that did have that capability, and even though it 8
had that capability in an individual situation the 9
capability wasn't utilized and it is in violation.
10 NR. GOLLER:
That is inherently permitted under 11 this rule.
12 CONNISSIONER GILINSKIa Have you gone back to look 13 at some actual accidents or incidents and picked out the
(
14 points which at these various times would be triggered.
In 15 other words, when would you start counting from, for 18 example, TMI or other occasions?
17 NR. GRINES:
We have considered that that is a 18 usef ul exercise and we will be either asking our research 19 office to do that or having a contractor do that.
I haven't l
-2D looked at, for example, Three Nile Island to see at what 21 points during particularly the first day one would have 22 reached these various classes.
It has been some time since 23 I looked at it, but I think one would have got to the 24 general emergency class several hours or about five hours 25 into the incident which would have warranted some action.
)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
l ff 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs Well, they declared a 2
general emergency at about 7 a. m. in the morning, about 3
three hours into the incident.
e 4
HR. GRIMES:
Yes, but under our guidelines it 5
would warrant telling people to take shelter.
I can 't 6
remember.
7 COHEISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, they dr.clared a site 8
emergency at about, I don't know, two hours a.'d 40 minutes, 9
or something like that, and ordered a general emergency half 10 an hour later, or something like that.
11 HR. GRIMES:
I am looking at what actually l
12 happened rather than what they thought the instrumentation 13 said or what they calculated.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So you are not saying what they
~
15 would have done had they known.
16 HR. GRIMESs What they would have done had they I'7 known with good information on the radiation levels stating 18 the containment.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE s But not what they would have 20 done with the information ---
21 3R. G'_IMES:
--- with the information that they l
(.
22 had.
I 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE That is even a different 24 scenario.
25 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKIs Wil.1 there be any f urther t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
45 1
discussion in workshops or whatever on what is a reasonable 2
response?
In other words, Joe has brought up the point tha t 3
one may not want to act in that time in every instance, and 4
we have said that legally the state isn 't required to act.
5 On the other hand, it doens't do any good to set up this 6
whole system if people are going to sit on their hands.
7 Somewhere in between there is a reasonable course of 8
action.
I don't whether this ought to be coming from FEMA 9
or from us or maybe result from some sort of joint effort, 10 but it seems to me that there ought to be further discussion 11 of whet is a reasonable course of action in specific 12 instances.
One way to look at that is to go back over 13 things that have happened or one can image some i
14 circumstances.
15 MR. GRIMES We in FEMA are in fact trying to 16 develop some guidance for a particular case, New York State, 17 which is thinking about in the future having their own 18 nuclear data link eff ectively and having it manned 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 19 a day and try'ung to make tae decision themselves.
I think 20 what we would recommend in that case is th a t they do 21 something at least as sonservative as what the licensee has 22 recommended, if they would agree to that in advance.
That 23 is the sort of thing we are faced with in particularly cases 24 trying to give the guidance.
We can try to give it jointly, 25 FEMA and NBC.
(
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC, 6 PLY 2A LTTMERTJ1 CNO[tREC4 WASHIN1Ei@N, D.C. 20024_ (202_) 55_4 2346-
40
.~,
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa Going back to Commissioner 1
2 Gilinsky's point, do we have in mind any association with 3
FENA or do you know if FEMA has in mind anv follow-up?
let 7
4 tur assume we out the rule, it goesv final and it now has 5
these' requirements in place.
How do state and local 6
governments essentially address the issue that we have been 7
discussing here, namely, what kind of guidance do they 8
develop for that individual who is going to be getting the 9
notification?
10 MR. GRIMES:
Of course a little more detail 11 guidance than is given in the rule as given in our joint 12 criteria document.
Depending on the individual situation a 13 plan has been developed and then reviewed against the b
14 general objectives from the regional advisory committees and 15 the FEMA regions.
16 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
Do we have as yet any sort 17 of prototype or model plans section which would describe 18 this area?
U 19 NR. GRIMES:
No.
We have lef t format open in the 20 plans for now.
21 CONNISSIONER HEND8IEs So we still have to see th e t
22 -
first of the real animals here which says when we get the 23-call from the licensee here are the things we expect to l
14 hear.
He vill tell us one of the following four things and 25 then we will do this, that and the other thing.
a.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
~
c~w-vT Tr;uu~tervumr.www.- rw e~sn crnemm
s s
47 1
MR. GRIMES:
We have a large number of examples, 2
dyafts in review now.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Does Tennessee's plan get into 3
4 that at all?
Do you know?
5 ER. GRINES:
I think it has to.
6 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
They don't have a 15-minute 7
capability down there, not yet.
8 HR. GRIMES:
They don't have a notification i
9 capability.
Under the rule that would be July 1,
'81.
It 10 is spoken to in each plan.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, anyway, I think Vick is 12 quite right, that is something for us to either assist FEMA 13 or encourage FEMA.
Some thing has to be done to do further k
14 work on that problem.
15 CONHISSIONER HENDRIE:
I will telr you something 16 that would help ze considerably.
As I have struggled with 17 this notification proposition, looking at the papers that 18 have come along and finally the proposed rule and the way 19 you have responded to at least some of the criticisms and so 20 on, I'am ready to buy off on having the physical capability 21 to blev sirens or buzz buzzers or whatever and to have 22 people understand that means switch on station WALK or 23 whatever and listen for the inevitable announcement that 24 will say, you know, do this, do that or do the o ther thing.
I
- f. 25 Having th e decision part built in there gives me a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, mm
48 1
problem.
It would give me considerably less of a problem if 2
I were able to derive f rom the statement of consideration, 3
the supplementary information section of the proposed rule 4
as well, perhaps as a hint in the rule language itself that 5
there is indeed a broad spectrum of events for which th e 1
6 licensee Aay find it appropriate to notify the off-site 7
emergency organization.
These range all the way, as Yick 8
says, from a call from the plant that says, "For God's sakes 9-move them as fast as you can.
It is just going to pieces on 10 se down here," in which case never mind discussing anything 11 with anybody, hit the buzzer and tell the radio stations to 12 tell them to get out fast out to five miles south of a plan t 13 or something like that.
Fair enough.
(
1<4 We have always contemplated that if things ever 15 went that way that that would be the kind of notification 16 licensees would give the local policy station and, you know, 17 local authorities and so on.
But it ranges all the way f rom 18 there toward much more likely events where there is going to 19 he substantial time and where it is going to be appropriate, 20 indeed highly desirable with the off-site officials to have
' 21 a chance to collect themselves and notify Governors' offices 22 and state radiological health offices, perhaps call the NBC 23 Response Center and have time for a little discussion before 24 there is a ringing of bells throughout the plant area.
(
25 I don't get fron the language as it new stands and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
49 1 :
the supplementary information at the front of the rule or 2
certainly not in the rule language itself any sense of that 3
spectrum or that it is contemplated by the writers of the c
4 rule that that spectrum exists and ought to be fully 5
exercised.
6 Now, maybe you can help that more in your informal 7
guidance documents than you can in the rule itself, but for 8
me it would help to have some sense of that in the statement 9
of consideration 's language.
It might be doable with a 10 couple of sentences which would make clear that this 11 15-minutes for notification of the public does not 12 contemplate that every time the phone rings from th e pl a'n t 13 that you have got 15 minutes to hit the buzzer and that the
(
14 absolute certain outcome of ' the phone call within 15 minutes 15 is to hit the buzzer, that indeed there is a spectrum of 16 events in quite a fair number of these.
17 I think I must say the more I hear about, you 18 know, class nine sequences and so on, why the more it looks 19 as though the great majority of those, perhaps th e ve ry 20 great majority of those will have substantial time elements 21 running in them and there is going to be some time to think 22 about who goes where and does what in a reasonable way.
23 MR. GRIMES:
I agree that we could do something
(
24 like that.
25 COHNISSIONER KEMNEDY Tha. in no way invalidates l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
50 1
the notion they should be able to do it in 15 minutes.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That is right.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYa That is not the mandatory 4
result.
5 MR. GRIMES:
I agree that most cases will provide 6
time for consultation, and I expect that consultation in 7
part of those cases would result in doing more than was 8
recommended by the licensee as a matter of fact.
It is just 9
a precautionary philosophy.
10 I would say on the last comment you made on the 11 class nine's that you have to make a distinction between 12 varning time and when you realize you have a very serious 13 problem from the initiation time.
If you look in the WASH 1-4 1400 columns you will see 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> to the release, but a one 15 or two hour warning time.
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes, but I am talking about 17 information developed since WASH 1400 was written which 18 suggests that the fraction of all core melt events which 19 fall into the fast moving containment breach category is 20 such small than had been expected and that for the rest the 21 times are longer than WASH 1400 then expected.
22 I think five years down the line we may find 23 considerably clarification of these matter, but it seems to 24 se the trend is clearly toward probably having more time in 25 these extremist circumstances than we had expected just a
-x At.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
51 1
few years ago.
Not all, but most.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Maybe you should try to 3
construct a couple of sentences.
4 MR. GOLLER:
We will.
I would just say we 5
certainly intended as the rule is written that that kind of 6
option would be exarcised.
There are really two aspects to 7
this.
First, it would be expected that the licensee in 8
making his decision on whether an emergency exists and what 9
kind of cn emergency would avail himself of that time period 10 of whatever consultation, NRC ---
11 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Watch out.
He has got 12 reporting requirements to get to us in one big hurry if 13 anything happens.
I am not sure he is going to have much 1-4 consultation time.
He is going to have to come through fast 15 to us, and I am not sure how much time he is really going to 16 be allowed to sit and think about whether he should call 17 this a site emergency or a general emergency and what he 18 should recommend when he calls it a general emergency to the 19 state people.
I think, you know, the pressures that we have 20 been applying are for him to stop thinking and get on the 21 telephone.
22 MR. GOLLER:
Well, for example, the Three Mile l
23 Island incident that was discussed before, there was a two 24 or three-hour period there where he could do sone l
25 consultation.
He could have some something else had this l
l l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
. Fur $ErTEAm erwrgrZT4 MQGDElif.TN @.@.E4 8 564#3D g
52 4
'l rule been in effect then.
He would have had 15 minutes, 2
that would have been the rule, that he would have had to 3
notify state and locals af ter he made the decision that 4
there was an emergency.
But before that he certainly could 5
call them and tell them that he has got a problem.
He is 6
not notifying them of an emergency.
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, he didn't think he 8
had a problem until his radiation monitors began to pop on 9
him, and as soon as they began to pop why he knew he had a 10 problem and minutes after that he declared appropriately the 11 site emergency and not very long af ter that it was clear it 12 was going to be delcared a general emergency.
So he just 13 didn't know.
You know, he didn't have two hours to 1-4 consult.
He didn't realize that he was in that situation.
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don't you move on, Karl.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, he wouldn't have 17 gotten to where he was anyway.
18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If he had realized it, that 19 is right, he wouldn't have been.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is right.
21 (Laughter)
Z1 MR. GOLLER:
If we could move on to the next issue 23 then, licensees and state and local governments.
Initial 24 comments at the workshops, and to a lesser extent in 25 subsequent written comments, were that the implementation i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, L
53 1
schedule for this rule was generally too short for the 2
entire regulation, but especially for the 15-minute 3
notification requirement which we have been discussing.
4 However,'our experience vth the ongoing reviews 5
for cperating plants indicates that the proposed 6
implementation schedule is reasonable except for the 7
notification requirement which we are proposing to extend 8
six months beyond the date that was indicated in the 9
proposed rule for implementation of the balance of the rule, 10 January 1, 1981, which we propose should stand.
11 CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:
In your description of the 12 issues in the rule you mention that one of the problems that 13 state and local governments have is the funding issue.
They 14 have to go through procedures to get funding in order to 15 implement.
There was a suggestion the Commission use the 16 House report time frame.
What difference would that be from 17 your modification?
18 MR. GOLLER.
I guess I am not clear on the 19 question.
Could you try again?
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Page 13 of 21 Enclosure B, item No.
4.
Now, I recognize the comment may 22 apply to more than just this one 15-minute aspect.
23 MR. GOLLERa Here we think the six-month 24 relaxation would go a long way toward dissolving that.
i l
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What I am really asking is that l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
. fREllfEITEJWL RA A
1 your comment here that you are referencing is the use of he 2
House report schedule.
What difference was the House report 3
schedule from your modification?
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE.
Something like six months 5
from an effective rule or the law or something lik e th a t,
6 wasn't it?
7 MR. JAMGOCHIANs I believe that was it.
I am 8
trying to think of exactly what the House report said.
I 9
believe the House report simply put six months af ter the 10 effective date of the regulation.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY All of this this goes to 12 the question of when will the money be available.
That is 13 answered not only as to whether there is actutlly money, but 14 when the machinery of government which makes it available 15 can actually function, and that is a function of the way the 16 state and local government operates.
Do we know for a fact 17 that this six months extension would permit state and local 18 governments in all cases to go through their normal 19 budgetary and appropriation process and make that money 20 available?
Are we sure of that?
21 MR. GOLlER I would say that we can't be sure of 22 all cases, but there are a number of places where the 23 process is being shortcutted with the utility providing the
(
24 funds directly to the state and local government.
25 COM3ISSIONER KENNEDY Do Public Utilities ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 574W;tfbT.VT7 fty&jTCsgiUVTuryuirr$(ylygp,Tig@{jdafn 6
55 1
Commissioners as a general proposition look with favor upon 2
the utilities doing that?
3 HB. GOLLAR:
I have asked that question also, and 4
so far the answer I get is yes, that any reasonable cost is l
1 5
allowed.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And how about one other 7
aspect which governs, the actual procurement and 8
installation time?
Are we certain that all of the hardware 9
can be procured and installed in that length of time or are 10 we putting out straw men?
11 HR. GRIMES:
No, I believe that within a year from 12 now the hardware can be procured.
We had some discussions 13 with some siren companies, for example, last winter and ther l 14 thought if the requirement were put in place then they 15 thought they might be able to meet January 1,
' 81.
- Now, 16 this is a little longer time, considering the large number 1
17 of plants.
18 COHEISSIONER HENDRIE.
You have given them six 19 more months and you are six months later ---
20 ER. GBIHES:
That was in a nine-months time frame 21 that they were answering the questions.
They thought they 22 aight have a chance in that time of doing it.
Now that they 23 have had the time there have been site surveys done.
A 24 large number of people have at least done the initial work 25 to plan a system, although most have not committed any money i.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
50
(
1 and are waiting for this rule to be finalized.
2 MB. JAEG0CHIAN:
Commissioner Kennedy, I think 3
really to answer your question, it really depends on who you v
4 talk to.
During the workshops I spoke to a number of state 5
and local civil defense type people and licensees.
And the 6
civil defense people I had asked them off the record do you 7
really think you can do that?
At that time it was January 8
1, or six months thereafter, whichever comes sooner, and 9
they said that is going to be tight to put up sirens.
10 Really they were worried about procuring the equipment, as 11 ve have noted in here, and telling people what it means if 12 that equipment goes off, the education of the people.
They 13 said that was a problaa.
14 The general consensus I got in talking to these 15 people was that add another six months on and it wouldn't be 16 too much of a problem.
17 HR. GRIMES:
I guess I wouldn't hesitate if it
~
18 comes next Mar?h and it looks like everybody is going to 19 need another three months of changing that date, but I think 20 it is a fair date, March.
21 CONNISSIONER KENNEDY:
You raised one other point 22 in saying that one of the difficulties is getting peop1'e to 23 understand what it means if the equipment goes off.
I was 24 wondering about that so I will ask what is a rit-picking 25 question, I guess.
Sirens exist in a variety of ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7m STREET, S.W. REPORTEP.SSUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
$7 I
configurations already. Air-raid sirens go off in this area 2
from time to time at high noon on some days of the week just 3
to make sure they run and that happens periodically.
There 4
are in all rural communities sirens located on fire houses 1
5 to call volunteer firemen to the telephone.
We are going to l l
6 add one more set of sirens.
They are going to be different,'
7 I assume, distinctly different so that no one would 8
misunderstand which siren he was hearing.
Is my assumption 9
correct, or is the local telephone network about to become 10 saturated every time there is a fire in the middle of the 11 night?
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We have a FEMA gentleman.
13 MR. EcCONNEL:
Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to 14 that.
I am John McConnel from the Federal Emercancy 15 Management Agency.
16 The answer to our question, Mr. Commissioner, is 17 no, it certainly will not be a unique siren for this purpose' 18 only.
There are sirens, as you mentioned, all over the 19 country used for various purposes, but in every case where 20 they are used for emergency purposes the single tone runningj 21 for three to five minutes means turn on your radio and 22 listen for additional information.
23 I believe we can get that point further across, 24 especially in a particular area where they are designed to 25 perform a function as a result of a particular type accident ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
58 1
by th'e general public education that we intend to promulgate 2
along with this.
So I don't think it is a real problem.
tr 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY Thank you.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEIRNEs If I could try once again for 5
at least part of my question.
Did anybody look at the House 6
report and look at what schedule they proposed?
7 MR. JAMG0CHIANs I did.
I don ' t recall wha t it 8
said now, but I did in the development of the rule.
9 (Laughter) 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Part two of the question of how 11 did it differ from this I will have to put aside?
12 Could you check?
13 MR. JAMG0CHIANs I will.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you.
15 (laughter) 16 COMNISSIONER HENDRIE s Whatever the particular l'7 H$use provisions were, John, I am quite sure that what was 18 contemplated there was a pretty f ast-moving implementation 19 and one that did not take into account things like state and 20 local government budgets cycles which are really several 21 years long.
22 MR. GOL1ERs We have a man looking it and we will 23 have an answer before the end of the briefing.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs The only reason I ask it in 25 that way though, Jo ef was at least the comment is written --q j
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, N
59 1
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE4 Yes, it sounded as though 2
the House plan was better.
3 C'HAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I will put aside the 4
judgmental work and just say longer.
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE On implementation schedules 6
still there is a 60-day plan turn-in af ter the eff ective 7
date.
let's see, one will have notice and one will have 8
abo,ut a 70-odd-day period af ter promulgation before it 9
becomes effective and then 60 days after that you are due to 10 get your p'lan.
How is that going to go?
11 ER. GRIMES:
That is looking towards November for 12 actual submittal.
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs What is your judgment?
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Now, you modified that.
It was 15 originally 180 days.
16 HR. GRIMES:
Yes.
I think the 180 days was also 17 for implementation of the rule.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it was 180 days for 19 submitting the plans and now it is 60 days for submitting 20 the plans.
I was wondering why you shortened it by three 21 months or four months?
22 MR. GRIMES:
Part of the reason is to get the 23 plans implemented and in place by Janaury 1,
'81, and in
(
24 recognition of the f act that people have been making 25 substantial progress on this plans and most everyone has at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
60-1 least a draf t plan rewritten, the licensees at least.
Elke 2
is showing me the original version hera.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I was looking at the version 4
that came up in the SECY paper.
The 180 was struck on page 5
38, wasn't it.
j 1
6 HR. GRIHES:
Which paragraph are you looking to?
j 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa Paragraph (u) on page 38.
8 HR. GRIMESs The previous paragraph I think 9
referred to having them implemented and not submitting 10 them.
Ihe alternatives fog the issue.
I can't exactly 11 focus on where it was.
12 CONHISSIONER HENDRIE:
The bulk of the plans, is i
13
,that two months after the effective date or are we going to 14 have to go into a great extension exercising?
I must say on 15 implementation schedules, if you try to set them f ar enough 16 out so that you are quite confident everybody can meet them I'7 without straining anything excessively, then you probably 18 haven't forced the system as much as it can usefully be 19 forced in at least some circumstances.
This is probably one 20 where there is an incentive to get on ahead.
21 On the other hand, if you set a schedule that you 22 know most everybody is going to have to breach because ther 23 just can't do it in order to force things hard, and you may 24 want to do that, but you need to recognize that come those 25 deadlines why you are going to have to sit down and issue a
\\
i *=
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7e STREET, s.w. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 J202) 554-2346_
gj
.~,
1-whole series of exemptions.
You know, that is all right, 2
too.
Maybe that is on balance a good way to go, but I think 3
it is useful to try to have a sense of how much of'that we p's u
4 are going to have to face.
5 HR. GRIMES:
Well, the experience is that during 6
our team reviews for the operating plants when we actually 7
vent out, we asked for the submittal of a draft plan within 8
about five weeks after the team visit.
Those who wished to 9
take it seriously did accomplish that and did get a draft 10 plan revised in a very short period of time.
So I believe 11 that they can get a plan in.
We have many plans which are 12 in the final stages of review internally against effectively 13 the rule and the interim criteria and which we are going l
14 back on particular points, but I think definitely something 15 which the utility believes meets the rule can be submitted 16 in a timely manner.
There is no provision for us to give an 17 approval before January 1 explicitly in this rule.
There is 18 a provision that they will submit the plans and that they 19 vill submit the procedures and that they will implement the 20 procedures and plan which meet this rule.
21 As we complete our reviews of those plans if we 22 find deficiencies then we will start the four-month period 23 which the rule speaks of in which to correct the 24 -
deficiencies.
So I believe that there won't be a 25 significant problem for the operating plants.
We may have L
1
\\-
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- en -Nfsue m
62 1
more problems for the near-term OL's accomplishing all we 2
need to accomplish for those.
3 ER. GOLLER:
They don't necessarily have to do it 4
by that date.
The date would relate to when they want to 5
start up and when they want their operating license.
6 MR. GRIMES:
There are some that would start up 7
before the rule would be effective or before the other 8
plants start up.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don 't you go ahead, Karl.
10 MR. GOLlER:
The next issue is the potential state 11 or local government veto power.
12 Can I have the next slide, please.
13 (Next slide.)
1-4 MB. GOLLER:
This is inherent in this rule.
As 15 you know, we have discussed this subject before.
The veto 16 power reference is a colloquialism used by commenters for 17 the potential failure of a state or local government to 18 develop and/or implement an acceptable emergency plan for 19 any reason and thereby blocking licensing and/or operation 20 of a plant.
Not just applicants and licensees but also 21' state and local government representatives commented on 22 this.
I want to note also that the ACRS commented on this 23 issue.
24 I would also note that all the comments on this a
25 point simply noted potential.
There were no suqqestions on ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, FORQ ff0CT~E RWA QTX.Gi~J3 FM3Elfd WA@HIN3PON O.@. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 63 1
how to resolve it.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would also note that the 3
authorization bill, however, does say as a condition of 4
issuing operating licenses that there must be a state or 5
local plan.
6 HR. GRIMESs There is an exemption for 7
compensating measures.-
8
- 58. GOLLER:
It does, but it also goes on to speak,
9 about Commision action.
1 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Right, but at least the 11 requirement for plans.
12 HR. SHAPAR The bill also requires the NRC by 13 rule to establish a mechanium to encourage and assist, and I, 14 think the words were carefully chosen, to encourage and 15 assist statas to comply with the standards promulgated b7 16 the NRC.
l 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is what this is.
18 MR. GOLLEas Well, we believe that this is an 19 inherent characteristic of the rule, and for the reasons 20 indicated on the slide that nothing needs to or should be 21 done to offset this.
22 The next slide, please.
i 23 (Next slide.)
5 24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Except be aware that 25 sometime down the line one one or another facilities we may j
i l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, J
64 1
have to look at those other circumstances that make it an 2
acce ptable proposition.
3 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, and the rule provides for 4
that.
5 The question of how the development of state and 6
local emergenc'y plans and even more importantly their 7
implementation will be funded was raised many times 8
especially by state and local governments.
However, the 9
ongoing reviews of emergency planning f or operating reactors 10 indicates that adequate funding is provided in some way, 11 generally in one way or another from th.e utility licensees.
12 This ranges from various taxes and levies to outright grants 13 from the utility licensees.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By graat do you mean something l
15 which then goes into the rate?
16 MR. GRIMES:
I guess we don't have the details on 17 that.
I assume it does.
18 MR. GOLLER:
I assume it would.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It is the cost of doing 20 business in most states.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It was the term " grant" and I 22 was just trying to make sure I understood it.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE John, I don't think it goes 1
24 in the cate base because that would be a capitalization.
25 MR. GOLLER:
I didn't say that.
I didn't say
~
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, FMFSffY4 EffXWfiBsNo D.& E4 8 554 2346
65 1
base.
I said into the rates.
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think in most states that 3
that is a cost of doing business.
4 MB. GOLLER:
'The distinction I meant to make was 5
that in at least some cases the licensee did not wait for 6
the state and local government to levy a tax or something on 7
him formally but ca.ther volunteered to provide resources and 8
in some cases personnel and in some cases personnel and 9
funds to provide the state or local jurisdiction with the 10 wherewithal.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I assume that consistent with 12 sose of the review groups that we have had examining a 13 number of issues that we would be in agreement that that is 14 a true cost of doing business anc the PUC's ought to allow 15 that to be charged.
16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs Well, it ultimately seems 17 to se to be a rational proposition.
If you need a certain 18 set of procadures that are connected with this way of making 19 electricity why that sounds to ma like it is part of the 20 cost of that kind of electricity. Feeding it, you know,. and 21 running it back to the people who would buy the power is a 22 cost iten and it is a f air way to distribute it.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Do ycu know of any PUCs that 24 have objected?
25 MB-GRIMESa I know of none.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 67?A RTEDdi33FNIMIT6LWAOH121iEK1@,@,W4 AN.
66 e-1 NR. JANG0CHIANs Not in the comment letters.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
3 HR. GOLLER:
Further on the subject of funding, it 4
is my understanding that FEMA vill address the subject in 5
its report to the President on the status of emergency 6
preparedness'of operating nuclear power plants which is due 7
June 30th.
8 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE4 You have here any federal 9
funding should come through FEMA.
I imagine that is an 10 issue that is still open to question with respect tc the 11 Congress.
12 MR. GOLLER.
As I understand it, the question is 13 whether there vill be any federal funding.
If there is any 1'
14 federal funding in this regard it should come through FEMA.
15 CONNISSIONER KENNEDYs Or at least not through the 16 NRC.
17 HR. GOLLERa Yes.
18 If I could have the next slide,'please.
19 (Next slide.)
20 MR. GOLLER:
You will recall that several pairs of 21 alternatives were included in the proposed rule.
The first 22 three of these are related to the effect of an inadequate 23 state or local plan and these were closely interrelated.
24 For these the staff continues to favor alternative "A"
which 25 would involve a Commission action to require shutdown.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
67 1
CHAIRNAN AHEARNE4 Now, as I read the s
2 authorization bill that would be auch more consistent wi th 3
"A" than "B"; is that correct?
4 NB. G01LEBt That would be my judgment, too, 5
although I think that is not absolutely clear.
6 The next two pairs of alternatives are appearing 7
in Appendix E of the proposed rule and hinged on whether to 8
require measures to prevent damage to property or not.
Here l
9 the staff. recommends alternative "B",
that is, there should 10 he no reference to property damage in this emergency 11 planning rule.
12 The last pair of alternatives, also in Appendix E, 13 involve the frequency of licensee exercises involving i
1-4 federal agencies.
Here we recommend alternative "B",
the 15 exercises involving federal agencies every five years.
I 16 point out that this would, even with the present number of 17 operating plants, involve the NRC and other federal agencies 1 18 in an average of more than one drill every month.
19 CHAIRM AN AHEARNE4 Can I ask a clarification 20 question,and without a blackboard it may be a little 21 difficult.
Suppose there is a state "A"
that has a nuclear 22 reactor in it and the ten-mile zone is solely within the 23 state.
The 50-mile zone goes out into two other states that 24 are neighboring it, sta te "B " and state "C".
State "B" has 25 a reactor in it and state "C" does not.
Now, there is a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2348 l
,o,o 1
requirement in here to go through the test with the state if 2
you are in the food ingestion pathway every five years.
3 Now, that in this case would cover state "A",
state "B"
4 because of state "A's" reactor and state "C" because of 5
state "A's" reactor.
State "B"
because it has its reactor 6
itself is going to be going through an annual test anyway.
7 HR. GRINES:
Not necessarily with that reacto r.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Not with that reactor.
9 MR. GRIMES:
One of the annuals might agree with 10 this o ther reactor.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
" hat is correct, but I am 12 saying we vill be going through an annual test with respect 13 to the reactor, but it need not go through the test with 14 respect to state "A's" reactor except every five years.
15 MR. GRIMES:
That is correct.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa State "C" since it does not 17 have a reactor has to at least go through the test every 18 five years because of the food ingestion.
But now where 19 does it stand?
I think the way the rule reads is that 20 because it is in an LPZ it has to go through it every year 21 anyway.
22 ER. GRIMES:
Because it is in an EPZ?
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
24 NR. GRINES:
I think only those within plume 25 exposure.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7m STREET. S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
69 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not sure.
That is what I 2,
was trying to find out.
r-3 HR. GRIMES:
The states are having some difficulty 4
with this wording right now, too, so you are not alone.
5-Q! AIRMAN AHEARNE:
It says "Each licensee shall 6
conduct an exercise at each power reacto'r site annually wi th 7
the states within the emergency planning zones."
8 HR. GRIMES I think you are right.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is on page 51.
I am not 10 sure whether I aa right or not.
I was just having some 11 difficulty understanding that requirement.
12 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think the answer to your i
13 question was that the guy on the white horse was the 14 Governor of state "A".
15 (Laughter.)
16 COMMISSIONER:
And I was anxious to see how we got 17 there.
18 (Laughter) 19 MR. GRIMES:
I think as written that it would 20 require state "C" without any reactors to havr n ingestion i
21 pathway exercise every year with any reactor
. was in 22 pair with the "A's" reactor.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not sure whether that is
(
24 realistic or not.
25 3R. GOLLER:
Why don't we take anothpr look at
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 6t?h N FNIMl26L WACHIN3EN, D.@,20024_ (20215s4 2346
...i'.
70 1
this and be sure that it is clear and as intended.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All richt.
3 MR. SHAPARs Does your quas' tion imply that state 4
"C' is getti" power f rom state " A" or the grid of the 5
reactor in state "A"?
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It just happens to be within 50 7
miles and I wasn't sure whether there was any lever lef t on 8
th a t state, and to do it every year might be a little much.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
Okay.
10 HR. GOLLER Do you want to do the next subject?
l 11
.CHAIHHAN AHEABNEs Yes.
l 12 MR. GOLLER:
May I have the next slide, please.
13 (Next slide.)
14 MR. GOLLER:
As previously indicated, the ACRS 15' recently reviewed and commented on the proposed and the 16 final rule.
We were able to resolve all items to their 17 satisfaction except three which were only partially resolved.:
18 Enclosura G to the Commission paper is a copy of 19 the ACES's letter to the Commission on their fir';t pair of 20 seatings and relating to the proposed rule.
The second l
21 letter to the Commission, a recent one dated June 11th was 1
22 recently provided to you but we have extra copies and we 23 made some of these available earlier this afternoon.
24 The next slide, please) 25 (Next slide.)
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, f~07th GCTUid 9.W. REPORTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
71 1
NR. GOLLER:
The first ACRS item that was not 2
completely resolved to their satisfaction is that the p
NRC/ FEMA approach should encourage state and local 3
r 4
governments to incorporate nuclear emergency plans into 5
their plans for other types of emergency situations.
6 Now, we agree with the princ'iple of the ACRS 7
comment, but we do not bel'ieve that it would be appropriate 8
for the NRC to try to force it in any way.
Therefore, we 9
recommend that no changes be made in the rule in this 10 recard.
Beyond that, as indicated on the slide, it is our 11 understanding that the spirit and intent of the ACRS' 12 comment would come into being in most cases in any case.
13 MR. SHAPARs I think there is some question as to 14 our legal authority to compel states to adopt a certain kind 1
15 of emergency plan for matters not related to nuclose power 16 plants.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
There is no question at all, is 18 there?
19 (Laughter) 20 ER. GOL1Eas As the slide indicates, as proposed 21 the supplemental information which accompanies the rule 22 indicates that these objectives may be blended with C
non-nuclear emergency plans.
That indication was 24 incorporated at the initial request of the ACRS in its first f.
25 letter.
They indicated in their second letter that they ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUlLDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346 _,_
72 1
. feel that this does not go far enough and some additional 2
provisions possibly incorporating the rule itself would be
'r 3
in oder.
We do not agree with this.
l 4
CHAIENAN AHEARNE:
When I read their first set of l
5 cometents I thought that part of it was their point that thay 6
f elt we were trailblazing in the way of emergency 7
preparedness, and it was partially also trying to say that 8
if we are going to go this far that we ought to try to push 9
all the other areas having gone that far.
If we perhaps 10 couldn't get the other areas to go that far then maybe we 11 shouldn't go this far.
I thought there was a little bit of 12 that flavor also.
13 ER. GOLLERs Perhaps Mr. McConnel from FEMA could
(
14 say a few words on this because it is my understanding that 15 it is FEMA's intent to accomplish pretty much what ACRS is 16 suggesting.
17 HR. McCONNELa Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 Yes, FEMA certainly agrees with the philosophy and 19 it would be battling the stream upstream if we tried to do 20 anything else.
It is inherent in the addition of any 21 emergency configuration, emergency planning configuration in 22 a state to incorporate it under the general umbrella of the 23 procedures they have developed for other types of 24 emergencies.
It will happen whether we like it or not, but 3
ve would also encourage it.
i l
ALDERSON RE?oRTING COMPANY, INC,
_ _ _ _300 7m STREET, S.W. P.EPoRTERS BUILDING. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346
73 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Thank you, John.
2 NR. GOLLER:
The next slide, please.
3 (Next slide.)
4 MR. GOLLER:
The second ACBS comment is to 5
incorporate the concept of staged notification in the rule 6
itself.
I want to note that the supplemental information 7
accompanying the rule clarifies that the rule permits this 8
type of implementation, but that capability for 15-minute 9
notification through the plume ETZ is required.
10 Now, similar words could easily be incorporated in 11 the rule which is all the ACRS sants, but clarifying 12 information on inherently permitted activities are 13 appropriate in the supplemental information and not in the 14 rule.
Therefore, the staff recommends that no change be 15 made in this regard.
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
If you are going to use a siren 17 system it is going +o be a little difficult to have many 18 stages.
19 HR. GOLLER:
These could be arranged control-wise 20 electronically in some stages.
This could involve, for 21 example, several buttons.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I am not saying you couldn't 23 trigger sirens sequentially or selectively.
We a th e r 24 conditions might really do more of a control over who would 25 hear them in your s,.ective tu rnar o und.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 2f44.1202) 554 2345 t
7pf i
1 MR. GOLLER:
To nove on to the next and last slide 2
then.
3 (Next slide.)
4 MR. GOLLER:
The last remaining ACRS comment 5
pertains to the potential for a state and local government 6
vets sc'Jee which we discussed before.
The ACRS requests 7
clarification of the Commission's intentions in this regard.
8 Based on the considerations brought out in the 9
earlier discussion on this issue the staff believes that the 10 Commission's position is clear and that no further action is 11 necessary.
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me ask two other ACRS 13 questions.
One certainly is an ACES question and one may 14 not be.
In your Enclosure L, page 2, this is your enclosure 15 which was analyzing the earlier ACES comments, on page 2 the 16 staff analysis of the second comment.
Ihat is then l'7 somewhere embedded in the rule; is that correct?
At least 18 in my initial reading of the rule I was having difficulty 19 finding it.
20 MR. GOLLER:
Well, that would certainly be my 21 understanding, Mr. Chairman.
I think Mike Jamgochian can 22 help us on that.
23 (Short pause) 24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, Mike, if you could get 25 back to me on that.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W.. REPORTERS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346 -..
75 1
The other question I think is one that General 2
Counsel and I had communicated briefly about.
3 MR. B7CKWIT:
It is a rather basic question about 4
the rule.
I gather it has been raised by the ACRS and I
)
5 suspect by others, and that is the way the rule is 6
structured the enforcement discretion of the Commission is f
7 curtailed from the situation that normally exists in the l
8 case of viola tions of other' Commission regulations.
9 The question that raises is why that is so, and, 10 if it is to be so, doesn't that raise the oblication f or the 11 Commission to come to the conclusion that somehow those 12 requirements are more important than the other requirements 13 in our regulations?
14 Is that too cryptic?
15 CHAIREAN AHEARNE:
Why don't you expand it a 16 little bit.
17 NR. BICXVIT4 In a case of a violation of other 18 regulations of the Commission the Commission has all kinds 19 of enforcement mechanisms at its discretion.
It may choose 20 not to shut a plant down even though there is a violation of 21 the regulations.
This is the one regulation I am aware of, 22 and there may be others but I am not aware of them, were in 23 the regulation itself we are imposing on ourselver a certa.in 24 enforcement responsibility.
My own inclination is that I 25 don't see the basis for the distinction.
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W.. REPORTERS BUILDING.. WASHINGTON D.C.20024 (202) 554 2346
76 1
MR. GOLLER:
When you say a violation of the 2
regulations do you seen, and I hate to use the word 3
" violation," but do you mean in terms of the state and local 4
gove rnme nt, for example, their not having the capability to 5
perform?
6 MR. BICKWIT That is right.
7 MR. GOLLERs But the rule in this case is quite 8
explicit what happens in that case.
9 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right and that is my point.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEABNE His point, Karl, is that in any 11 of the regulations which we establish as requirements on the 12 licensees you must do this.
Then latent in our statement -
13 that you must do this carries with it that if you don 't 14 carts n actions may follow, one of which is shutting th e 15 plant down.
16 MR. GOLLER:
Yes.
17 CRAIRMAN AREARNE:
But that latter description ls 18 is not explicit.
19 MR. BICKWITs In this case we must shut the plant' 20 down except if we make certain findings.
In the case of agy 21 other regulation on the books our discretion is not so 22 limited.
23 MR. GRIMES:
This does not make the statement tha t 24 you made.
This says "If deficiencies are not corrected l
25 within four months the Commission will determine whether the l
I f,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, I
NM RM @l@ LNG. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 J232) 554 2345.
77 1
reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are 2
remedied."
e 3
ER. GOLLER:
That is one of the reasons that we 4
recommend alternative "A" because it does provide that 5
flexibility.
6 HR. BICKWIT4 That is right.
Th'an it says "The 7
reactor need not be shut down subsequent to the four-month 8
period if the licensee can demonstrate," and I read that to 9
sean only if, "to the Commission's satisf action that the 10 deficiencies in the plant are not significant for the plant 11 in question or that alternative compensating actions have 12 _
been ---
13 HR. GRIHES:
I didn't read the "only if."
14 HR. GOLLER:
But beyond that the Commission can 15 always grant exemptions to its own rules if that be deemed 16 proper.
17 ER. BICKWIT:
Is that the intention that in 18 addition even if these exemptions are not complied with that 19 the Commission contemplates exempting plants from the 20 requirement under 50127 21 HR. GOLLER:
I don't know whether it contemplates 22 it.
It certainly has that prerogative.
23 NR. SHAPAR:
Under any rule.
24 HR. GOLLER:
Under any rule.
s 25 MR. BICKWIT4 I understand that.
If that is what
(
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024.(202) 554-2345 r -
78 I
ve do contemplate then this is really, the word I would use 2
is fluff, because if we don't intend to adhere to these 3
requirements then the question is why are ther there?
g 4
NR. GOLLER:
No, I think we do intend that the 5
Commissioner adhere, but the possibility, and I think that 6
is what you were getting at at first, is there for some very 7
unusual circumstances.
8 HR. BICKWITs Well, then, if we do intend to 9
adhere in these circumstances then why don't we have similar 10 requirements curtailing our discretion with respect to 1
11 violations of other regulations?
Jay is this regulation 12 different from the other regulations?
13 HR. SHAPAR:
Let me take a stab at that, Karl.
14 This was a very, very controversial issue from the 15 beginning, and it eventuated through - long series of 16 discussions with th e public.
This is one of the l'7 controversial issues in which there was a lot of comment.
18 This particular problem cried out for solution, and this is 19 the solution that the staff is recommending.
Beyond that it 20 is not really novel in the sense, although it is not a 21 regulation and the analogy is not perfect, you do have 22 technical specifications and operating licenses that require 23 such things as shutdowns under certain conditions.
Maybe 24 you would like to add to that.
25 HR. GRIMESaI think the major difference is tha t in k.
ALDERSOrd REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET. S.W. REPORTERS 8UILDING, WASHINGTON o.C. 2C024 _t202) 554 2346 7--
y
6 79 1
all of our other regulations, at least the few that I am 2
familiar with, we are really talking to the licensee and we 3
saying here is what you aust do, at the licensees well knov r
4 what happens if they don't.
5 In this particular case we are to some large 6
extent talking beyond the licensee.
We are really talking 7
to the state and local government agencies, and we don't 8
have any legal requirement to levy on them.
We levy on the 9
licensee, but we are trying to talk beyond them, so ve are 10 making it much more explicit than we do in our others.
11 HR. BICKWIT But I don't understand tha t as a 12 basis for the distinction-frankly, because we could provide 13 that the licensee would be considered in compliance with the 144 regulations only if the state and local governments complied 15 with these particular measures.
We could then leave 16 ourselves free, as we do in the case of our other rules, to l'7 apply any enforcement action that we consider desirable.
18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, I see what you mean.
19 MR. GRINES:
But inherent in th e f c9r-month 20 period, f or example, is a judgment that thcTa ra be less 21 than perfect emergency plans.
22 HR. BICKWIT I am not saying there is not 23 flexibility here.
There certainly is flexibility.
It is
(
24 not a major point, but nonstheless if one has a certain 25 affection for consistency it is a point worth making that in ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS SUILDING, WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024.(202) 564-2346
80 1
other circumstances were were no limits on the enforcement lI I
2 discretion of the Commission.
Here we are providing the the) 3 limits and I fail to see the cationale for it.
I don't find 4
any legal problem associated with doing it.
5 HR. GOL1ER:
.As we discussed before, they are 6
really not limits.
They are more by way of guidance set up 7
in advance of what the Commission will use as criteria if 8
this circumstance arises.
9 C05HISSIONER KENNEDY It is essentially saying 10 what the Commission will do, which is the point you are 11 making.
It is reaching the conclusion.
12 HR. GRINES:
Auf will not do within that 13 four-month period also.
1-4 MR. SHAPARs I think the real question is whether 15 this is a rational response to what has been id4ntified as a 16 very serious and controversial problem.
So I think there is 17 a basis for a distinction between the ordinary case and this 18 rather unusual situation we have of extrapolating from our 19 authority over the licensee to try and control the actions l
20 of the states.
So I think the real question is is it a 21 rational way of handling it isn't it?
In my opinion it is.
l 22 MR. BICK7I.
I must say I do not find it an 23 irrational way to handle it.
I just find it a way that is 24 inconsistent with the way ne handle violations of other 25 regulations and I f ail to see the rationale.
N, ALnERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,300 7th STREET, S.W. REPORTERS BUILDING WASHINGTON,o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346. - - - _ -.
81 1
COHNISSIONER KENNEDYs Which presumably could have 2
equally serious health and safety implications.
3 MB. BICKWITs In fact, might have more serious 4
health and safety implications.
But if our conclusions were 5
that they were of equal severity I f ail to see why in this 6
case we tell ourselves in our rules what we are going to do 7
where in other cases we do not tell ourselves in our rules.
8 CHAIRNAN AHEARNEs My answer would be we are not 9
really telling ourselves.
We are trying to speak to a group 10 of institutions to which we norsally don't speak and as a 11 result perhaps need a little bit greater clarification laid 12 out on what we would do in that instance.
13 COMMISSIONEB KENNEDYs Your problem could perhaps 14 be corrected without any violence to this point if it simply 15 said in such circumstances the Commission shall take such 16 enforcement action as it deems appropriate to and including 17 ordering the shutdown of the reactor which would give the 18 signal tha-t the Commission does not exclude the possibility 19 that it will order it.
20 ER. SHAPAB I think the reference though is at 21 2.200 which encompasses the full panoply of the Commission's 22-enforcement authority.
23 NH. BICKWIT But it tells us that we are going to
(_
24 shut down the plant under certain circumstances.
i 25 HR. GOLLER:
If we moved in the direction of the u
ALDIR5oN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
82 I
vording that was just suggested we would be moving even 2
further away from alternagive "B".
3 MR. BICKWITs There is no doubt about that.
(
4 ER. SHAPAR Well, I think really the analogy is l
5 the technical specifications.
We are saying that there are 6
certain situations which ordinarily will cause a plant 7
shutdown unless we make certain findings.
That is the 8
identicial theory of using technical specifications, if 9
certainly things happen to the plant they will shut the 10 plant down.
11 HR. BICKWITs Those things as I understand it are 12 those things we regard as the most serious violations of our 13 various code of rules and requistions.
If that is our view 1-4 of these'particular regulations, then I think there is a 15 rationalization.
If that is not our view I think we have an 16 inconsistency.
1 17 CHAIBMAN AHEARNEs Well, I would guess that that 18 vill be one of the issues along with the 15-minute aspect 19 that when the Commission comes to a final vote on this that i
I 20 ve vill have to think about.
You might want to propose as 21 you just did alternative language.
1 22 I wonder if I could ask two questions.
I assume 23 you are now through with your briefing, Karl?
(
24 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, except we have ansvers to the 25 two questions that. vere left open before on the House rule ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
83 1
and on that other quotation *.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa Fine.
3
'HR. JAEGOCFIAN On page 7 of Enclosure B, that 4
was a reply to the ACRS comment, six lines down.
5 HR. GRIMES:
The confusion was the word " rule" was 6
used in the response and-it appears in the supplemental 7
inforantion rather than in the regulations.
8 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I was looking at the rule.
9 HR. GOLLER:
Likewise, to your first original 10 question relative to the House Report 0413, I will read the 11 words and they are on page 53.
"While the Commission should 12 determine how much time a utility will have to comply with 13 this order," an order to shutdown, "the Committee considers 14 that in no case should more than two years be necessary and 15 that in many cases one year will be sufficient."
Now, one 16 year from the date of publication of this, and it was in 17 August '79 ---
18 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE And two years would then make 19 it August of
'81.
20 HR. J AHG0 CHIA N s Or one year in August of this 21 year.
22 CH AIRH AN AHEARNE4 Thank you.
23 Page 47.
I would like some explanation of how you
(
24 would implement or how you would propose, whoever has to 25 implement, the phrase " including the transient population
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
- f. van ~,vt e -_. -_
34 1
within the yearly dissemination to the public of this 2
information."
3 ER. JAMG0CHIANs Basically it was envisioned by 4
the staff that a page in the phone book or signs around 5
beaches, something to that extent, or both, in order to take 6
care of the' transient population.
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you then have similarly 8
reached the conclusion that signs on roads or a page in the 9
phone book would satisfy the requirement of the yearly 10 dissemination to the nontransient public?
11 ER. JARG0CHIAN:
No, I wouldn't.
12 CH AIRMAN AHEARNEa How would the reader of the 13 rule know that you have a fundamentally different approach 14 allowed with respect to transients and nontransients?
15 HR. JANG0CHIANa Well, usually rules are amplified 16 by regulatory guides, and I would imagine a section in the 17 regulatory guides addressing each one as well as giving more 18 definitive information as to what the mail-out would containo 19 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa I would like at least to hear a 20 little bit more from you on that.
I thought I well 21 understood the yearly dissemination to the public and th e 22 type of information as you had briefly spoken about, perhaps 23 a pamphlet of some kind in the utility bill or such.
(
24 MR. GRIMES:
I think typicall/ what might be done 25 for a public beach is to just post a notice of what would be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, fi~i)SC)OUC C R S Q. R:N CEILDINS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
85 1
done.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My concern is that one has
(
3 fundamentally a different type of information and detail 4
that you ara talking about giving to the nontransient vesus 5
the transient.
Without some care here you could either 6
guarantee that it would be an impractical method to 7
distribute to the transient that you would be trying like 8
the pamphlet that had to be handed out to everybody coming 9
into an area, or you would greatly water down the 10 information that would be going to them.
11 MR. GRIMES:
It may be a combination of making it 12 known that there is information availabla.
The transient 13 population could be another very free agent.
14 MR. GOLLER:
Did you want something additional to 15 that?
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs I would like some clarification 17 somehow whether you are going to put it into the backup to 18 the rule or somewhere because embedding that phrase within 19 that section I think could very well be interpreted as ther 20 are treated alike.
21 Now, the other question I had was on page 6 of the 22 basic SECY paper.
On the coordination it said "The Office i
23 of Research has participated but will submit comments to the l
24 Commission at a later date."
25 Kevin, what does 'that mean?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
m 1;ua m
86 1
MR. BERNEBot I am Bob Bernero of the Office of 2
Re sea rch.
Basically we had a concern with this rule.
At 3
one time it was called an interim rule, and it has an 4
interim character in our view.
It is a first step, and G
there is a lot of work to be done.
During this discussion 6
this aftednoon you were pursuing one of the areas where we 7
are most deeply interested in work that has to be done. the 8
decision-making process.
9 The fundamental parts of the rule which cover the 10 jurisdictional authority and approval of emergency plans, we 11 have no quarrel with that.
The idea of having prompt 12 diagnosis and prompt notification is equally acceptable 13 provided that there is something prethought or predigested 14 that can be used intelligently to take advantage of tha t 15 time.
16 A great deal of analysis we think has to be done 17 yet to weigh the effectiveness of various publ,1c protective 18 measures for a site for a particular type of reactor and to 19 have a soundly based emergency procedure which would be at 20 the desk side for the night duty officer to act on.
21 Now, in the discussion you had earlier this Zt afternoon I got the impression that the Commission may not 23 be aware of a fairly large body of guidance that already
(
24 does exist.
The criteria document that is referred to in 25 the rule, the FEMA /NBC NUREG-0654 has an attachment or an l
l l^
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
87 1
appendix in it, NUREG-0610, and that already gives a fairly 2
substantial body of guidance on if you have a general 3
energency what is the logical step to do, take shelter for 4
two miles, and if you have lost two of the three barriers do 5
something else.
6 A lot more of that work is needed, and that is our 7
real concern that one not go away with the impression that 8
this rule is the end-all and be-all of emergency planning.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I doubt if any of us who have 10 participated to any extent in that think it is the end-all 11 and be-all of emergency planning.
It is a major step 12 forward.
I as familiar with that and had some early 13 problems with it.
There are some modifications in it that 14 have made it more acceptable to me, but I don't think that 15 that chart per se, that set of charts, are really an 16 adequate set that you would want to have that individual who 17 gets notified in the state and local that that is it, that 18 that is the sole set of criteria.
19 MR. BERNERO:
No, no, more needs to be done.
No 20 question.
21 CHAIRNAN AHEARNE:
That is essentially then the 22 gist.
23 MR. BERNERO:
That is essentially our problem.
24 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE Dick.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs I have a couple of l
ALDERSoN REPORT 1NG COMPANY,INC,
- wrum_r,
.. m m r.xo c~;m o m
88 1
questions.
One on page 34.
Among the objectives that must 2
be met by on-site and off-site emergency response plans is 3
the inclusion of general plans for recovery and reentry.
I 4
guess I am not quite sure as to why that is a part of an 5
energency response plan.
It seems to me that comes well 6
after.
The implication there is something well after the 7
energency.
What does that included?
It also appears later 8
in Appendix B on page 52, I think.
9 MR. GHIMES:
Yes.
What we have in mind there are 10 indeed general plans.
We agree that detailed planning need 11 not be done in advance for that.
For example, the detailed 12 criteria under that objective in the FEMA /NRC criteria 13 document include developing plans for how you relax 14 decisions on protective measures.
In other words, at what 15 point do you allow people to go back into an area?
You 16 should prethink not only how you take people out but at one l'7 point you would allow thes to come back into the area and 18 that calls for a general outline of the recovery area 19 organization, and says that that specified by the AIF would 20 be would be an acceptable organization.
That is essentially 21 the extent of the detailed criteria.
22 MR. GOLLERs I would also like to note that'this 23 is in Appendix E which this regulation has really changed 24 and an extension of it.
The present Appendix E includes 25 information of this kind if you actually required deletion ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, WYXTT6fiTCL 8,8. A (202) 564-2346
89 1
of this kind of information if we were to move from it.
2 This was also a factor in why we continued this 3
consideration.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYs One other.
The rule 5
implies that FEMA vill also 13 reviewing plans that are 6
associated with fuel cycle facilities.
It doesn't go into 7
the kinds of criteria that will be involved.
Can you say 8
something about what is intended?
9 MR. GRIMES:
I think Nuclear Materials Safety and 10 Safeguards intend to provide additional manpower in the next 11 couple of fiscal years to develop those more detailed 12 criteria.
Certainly we are not looking at 10-miles zones 13 for those other types of facilities.
In some cases you may 14 have a pharmaceutical facility in a downtown area that may 15 indeed require some planning around the immediate area.
Th e 16 NMSS is in the process of identifying those and has sent a 17 list of key facilities to FEMA.
After FEMA's initial 18 efforts on operating reactors are a little better underway 19 then efforts on these other areas will be undertaken.
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Joe?
21 COMMISSIONER HARDIES No.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I thank you very much.
I 23 think it is an excellent product.
We are almost there.
We 24
-have a few sore Commission meetings or at least one we have 25 to no throagh.
Certainly I thank all of you who have worked ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
JU 1
so very hard.
I also appreciate the contribution FEMA has 2
made in both working on this and also willingness to come to 3
meetings such as this and participate.
It is really a major 4
accomplishment.
5 Thank you all very much.
6 (Whereupon, at 4: 20 p.m.,
the public meeting 7
concluded.)
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 s -
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, Nir O.Ose :;
j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to cer _1fy that the attached proceedings before the
('
in the matter of:
Staff Presentation on Final Rulemaking on On Emergency Preparedness - Public Meeting l
- Date of Proceeding:
June 18, 1980 Docket !! umber:
Place of Proceeding: Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.,
Mary C. Simons Official Reporter (Typed)
MW V
Official Reporter (Signature)
O
\\
l e
.7-v-
w
~
.