ML19343C973
| ML19343C973 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253D139 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PRM-2-10 SECY-81-150, NUDOCS 8104090003 | |
| Download: ML19343C973 (5) | |
Text
.-
p* *louq
[g. f') Transcript of Proceedings 5,
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION 81-14 (Open to Public Attendance)
Thursday, April'2, 1981 l*
II
[([,)['ROG199
/g d6 r
} i
'~ d C.
Pages 1-3 Y
"l5$lffuroes h Prepared by:
N
,gh C. H. Brown Office'of tgtac 81040900o2)
. - -. =. -..
6
~bh) i
- s:.t ii
- 5. E..i.5 2=5h 255
=q
. ::::Ed 5.
'r DISCLAIMER i
24 This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States E555 Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on April 2, 1981 in the
- m. iy Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W.~, kashington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript
'=Em has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
=
~.::Em The transcript is intended solely for general infomational purposes.
=-G As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal
==
......~"
record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in
~
this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
==5E
....==:
!!b
- E as
=em
==2
. = =
- .==
5 515 5505
.:3,::.
~~))..
=
hhb
=:
iL-is:-5
i l
I I
l 1
i l
l 1
UNITED STATES'O[ AMERICA' 2 I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
l?
el 4
AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION 81-14
( Pen to Public Attendance) 5
)
6 l
l 1
4 7
Commissioners' Conference Room 1717 H Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.
C.
l 9
Thursday, April 2, 1981 f
i 10 i
11 j The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m.,
12 !;-
Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission presiding.
13 e 14 ll' 1-Il PRESENT:
l 15 1
4 Chairman Hendrie 16 Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne 17 18 ALSO PRESENT:
19 S. Chilk",-Secretary L. Bickwit, General Counsel 20 21 22 23 i
i 24
- t i
25 i' I
- l. '
11 l:
ll. -.
l i
i 2
i
.i 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If,we could come to order.
2 The Commission meets this afternoon for an affirmation i
3-l session.
We were scheduled to affirm an item,81-138, i
4 Indemnification of Two Licensees Storing Spent Fuel at 5
Non-Reactor Facilities.
That item is being removed from 6
this afternoon's affirmation session.
7 However, I have other items to offer for which I would i
8 ask my colleagues to join me in voting to hold a short-notice 9
meeting.
l i
10,;
The items are:
SECY-81-171, To Secure Commission
!c 11 ' Approval of Conflict of Interest Exemption for Dr. Meoller, 12 the ACRS Member.
SECY-81-176, Commission Response to Holt 13 f! FOIA Appeal.
SECY-81-150, Petition for Rulemaking Filed by 0
14 1 the Citizens Advisory Board Reque ting Amendments to 10 CFR i:
1 15 i Part 2.
Those in favor of the short-notice meeting, please I
v te "aye"?
16 l
(Chorus of ayes.)
17 HA A
HENDRIE:
So ordered.
18 Sam, onward.
yg.
MR. CHILK:
SECY-81-171, the Commission has unanimously 21 granted Dr. Meoller, an ACRS Member an exemption from Section 22 208 so that he might be permitted to review,as a Member of i
23 the ACRS, work performed by the Argonne National Laboratory.
l l
W uld you please affirm your votes.
24 (Chorus of ayes.)
25 l
ll
y i
I 3
l i
r l
l 1
MR. CHILK:
The seco d dne is SECY-176, Commission 2
l Response to the Holt.FOIA Appeal.
The Commission has ll-unanimously approved the withholding of 15 Commission-level 3
l 4
1 documents all of whichwere subject to this appeal.
5 Would you please affirm your votes?
6 (Chorus of ayes.)
- l. '
i 7
[
MR. CHILK:
The third and last is SECY-150, Docket No.
I llPRM-2-lu,'PetitionforRulemakingFiledbytheCitizens 8-9 l Advisory Board Requestin'g Amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.
The i
10 Commission has unanimously approved the notice denying the 11 petition for rulemaking pertaining to the Commission's rules i-12 ] of practice.
I 13 j!
Would you please affirm your votes?
I i
14 !
(Chorus of ayes.)
2 i
15 i
MR. CHILK:
Thank you.
I T
16 I will re-schedule the other item as soon as the i
17 General Counsel the ELD get squared away.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
19 I thank you very much.
(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.)
20 21 22 l
1 23 l
l 24l:
i ll 25 ;!
e all
7/f33)t)#37
+- gg cs f*"%s
.o a [ x j March 9,1981 f<
4 S 150 2 ii S
- c '
1 c
%.m.,....f RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Sub.iect:
DOCKET NO. PRM-2-10, PETITION FOR RULEMAXING FILED BY THE CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 2
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a Federal Register notice (Enclosure A) denying the petition (as revised to comply with the Commission'.s instructions in Memorandum S80-548 from S. Chilk).
Cateoory:
Routine matter Discussion:
The staff was advised in Memorandum S80-548 of February 5,1981 from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, to William J. Dircks, EDO, (Enclosure G) that the Commission required revision of the proposed Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking according to certain enclosed comments and an attached outline.
The staff is hereby submitting the requested revisions (Enclosure A).
Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve the revised Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking (Enclosure A) for publication in the Federal Reoister and thereby close Docket No. PRM-2-10.
2.
Note:
a.
A letter transmitting a copy of the Notice of Denial will be sent to the Citizens V
Advisory Board (Enclosure B).
,.'\\s, t",C b.
Denial of the petition does not i i 2,/
significantly affect the quality of the human environment or involve unresolved y/r y
conflicts concerning available resources.
Accordingly, no environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or CONTACT:
environmental impact appraisal need be Fredric D. Chananie, OELD prepared.
492-8689
/ c.
The appropriate House and Senate Committees will be notified (Enclosure C).
d.
A public announcement will not be issued.
(.h-William'J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
s A.
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking 8.
Draft Letter to Alan H. Kirshen C.
Draft Letter to Chairman of Committees 0.
Petition for Rulemaking E.
Federal Register Notice F.
Letters of Comment 13)
G.
Memorandum S80-548 Feb. 5, 1981)
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Se,retary by c.o.b. Wednesday, March 25, 1981.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the_ Commissioners NLT March 18, 1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. _If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of April 6, 1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
f DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat I
4
-7 7-
5 W
~ '
~
~
n
.}
s
+~:* ' aT.*-
p.m'i.i M
i d
- a*
s 9 -
s -
, g*efgv, %(..-'
=
t3
.g g
- 4, t
,t G,i1'
- s (J i y-I v
I 5
j g
C' p
9,
f
+
Enclosure A e
/
i
- s u.
e,
['
3 '
-+
"
- E-) f
}
- ~,
h.
- ~
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 2
[ Docket No. PRM-2-10]
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING AGENCY FOR OMAHA, NEBRASKA AND COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA; NOTICE OF DENIAL 0F PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is hereby denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the Citizens Advisory Board. The petitioner requested a variety of amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2, including provisions for informal hearings where formal ~ hearings would not be held and requests for hearings to be filed by persons not attempting to intervene in the proceeding.
Petitioner also sought expanded service of all docket-related papers and the holding of all hearings and meetings at reactor j
sites at times maximizi,g public attendance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Fredric D.- Chanania, Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone (301) 492-8689.
l 1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORttATION:
This petition for rulemaking was filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency for Omaha, Nebraska and Council Bluffs, Iowa on March 13, 1980.
Petitioner sought a number of amendments to the Commission's Rules of Practice,10 CFR Part 2.
The petitioner's proposals were set out in the Federal Register notice requesting. comment on the peti-tion.
In brief, the petitioner sought the following:
1.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.105 which would require that an " informal hearing" be held by the NRC staff in all licensing cases where a " formal hearing" is either unavailable, not requested, or requested and denied.
2.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.714 giving persons not attempting to intervene in a licensing proceeding the right to request a formal hearing.
3.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.715 providing that any person so request-ing would be furnished by the Secretary of the NRC all docket-related papers i
and be sent notice of all hearings, conferences, and informal proceedings.
i i
4.
An amendment to 10 CFR 2.751 requiring that all hearings and NRC-licensee / applicant meetings be held at a site and at times maximizing attendance by a majority of persons potentially affected.
l l
i e
w 7
v
. Thirteen public comments were received on the petition, all of which opposed the petition.
Connenters stressed that petitioner's suggestions would add cost and delay to the licensing process, were unnecessary in view of current NRC rules providing for public participation in licensing, and were subject to abuse by persons seeking only to delay licensing rather than contribute to the process by good faith participation.
We have considered the Citizens Advisory Board petition and the comments submitted in response, and have concluded that the petition should be denied.
The reasons for our denial of the Citizens Advisory Board petition may best be understood in light of the NRC's current practice with regard to informal public meetings or hearings, particularly since the substance of most of the concerns expressed by the petitioner are already met under our present practice. We will discuss these matters in response to the four basic areas of concern raised in the Citizens Advisory Board petition.
(1) NRC Infonnal Hearings and feetings.
The NRC currently holds infonnal public hearings or meetings near the site, in the area of the NRC regional offices, or in the Washington, D.C. area on matters of special public interest relating both to specific nue'aar plants and to more generic issues.
Recent informal public hearings or meetings have covered a wide range of subjects, including (a) environmental, health, and safety matters related to applications for construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power plants, (b) upgrading emergency preparedness plans at
- operating nuclear power plant sites, (c) the NRC's proposed policy and procedures for enforcement actions, and (d) NRC enforcement actions against specific licensees.
Such meetings and hearings are designed and conducted to achieve several objectives:
to inform the public of proposed NRC or licensee actions, to enable the public to observe firsthand the NRC regu-latory process at work, to air differing views on the matters in issue, and to provide an opportunity for the public to question NRC and licensee per-sonnel directly. To maximize participation, members of the public are generally notified in advance of the informal hearings or meetings through notices published in local newspapers, notices published in the Federal Register, radio and television announcements, or through a combination of these methods.
The public meetings on environmental, health, and safety matters related to applications for construction permits or operating licenses for nuclear power plants are noteworthy. These meetings have generally been in two areas:
(1) special meetings on environmental, health, or safety matters among the NRC staff, licensee / applicant personnel, and the public, and (2) other technical meetings between the NRC staff and the licensee /
applicant. Two examples illustrate these types of informal public meetings.
In the early stages of NRC consideration of the contruction pennit applica-tion for Palo Verde Units 4 and 5, open public meetings were held in Phoenix, Arizona on environmental matters (October 12 and 13,1978) and on safety matters (October 17 and 19,1978). At the Palo Verde meetings, information was presented to the public, and question-and-answer sessions followed.
. In connection with a proposed increase of the maximum power rating in the operating license for the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, an infomal meeting was held on January 16, 1980 in Omaha, Nebraska.
NRC staff members partici-pated along with the licensee Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), parties (both individuals and groups) that had previously requested a fomal NRC hearing on the matter, and other members of the public.
During the meeting, OPPD presented its plans for the power increase, the NRC staff discussed its review of OPPD's proposed power increase, and other participants made their views known and questioned OPPD and NRC participants.
Shortly after the meeting, the request for a fomal NRC hearing was withdrawn, and the NRC received favorable comments on the exchange of information and views which had taken place.
Technical neetings between the NRC staff and the licensee or applicant are generally open to the public pursuant to the NRC "Open Meetings" policy, which is fully described in a policy statement issued on June 28, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 28058) and in another published on October 20, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 49082). Other special meetings are held where circumstances and public interest commend such action.
For example, approximately 70 meetings were held in 1980 with the public, local officials, and other interested organi-zations in the area near the Three Mile Island (TMI) plant on various sub-jects related to the status of TMI.
As to the three other general subjects mentioned above, approximately 130 informal hearings or meetings took place during 1980 in areas immediately
. surrounding the operating or proposed nuclear plant itself or in the general areas where such plants are or will be situated.
Over 30 of the 130 local meetings focussed on the NRC emergency preparedness program. These 30 meetings and workshops involved providing the public with infomation on proposed NRC emergency preparedness regulations, presenting an evaluation of the status of the emergency preparedness plans for the nuclear power plant in that area, and giving the public an opportunity to question NRC and licensee personnel directly on these topics.
In addition, proposed policy and procedures for NRC enforcernent actions were discussed at several regional public meetings which took place in 1980.
The enforcement policy and proce-dures and the schedule of meetings were announced in NRC press releases and published in the Federal Register.
45 Fed. Reg. 66754 and 45 Fed. Reg. 69077.
Open, infomal meetings have also included matters subject to NRC enforcement actions, usually where licensees had received an NRC notice of violation of the tems or conditions in their construction permits or operating licenses.
In 1980, such open enforcement meetings were held, among others, in Athens, Alabama on Browns Ferry Unit 3 (containment penetration closures and TVA operational procedures); in Madison, Indiana on the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Station (upgrade of quality assurance program and construction manage-ment activities); in Sacramento, California on the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (valve misalignment and administrative procedures); in Bay City, Texas on South Texas Project Units 1 & 2 (construction activities and quality assurance program); in New York City on Indian Point Unit 2 (river water leakage into containment); and in South Haven, Michigan on the
. Palisades Nuclear Power Station (mispositioned safety system valves and routine surveillance test procedures).
At these open meetings, NRC personnel questioned the licensee on various aspects of the violation and proposed or completed renedial actions, with the public observing the entire process.
Following this segment of the meeting, the public had an opportunity to question the NRC personnel present and, at times, those of the licensee.
Attendance at such open enforcement meetings ranged from one person to large crowds of several hundred persons.
As a result of activities such as the examples noted above, the NRC has found that open, informal meetings and hearings have positive, useful effects in permitting the public to judge for itself the effectiveness of nuclear regulation by the NRC. The NRC staff continues to explore ways to improve its anticipation of matters which have considerable public interest, so that informal hearings and meetings may be scheduled. Open and informal meetings also provide a valuable forum for members of the public to receive information on NRC practices and policies directly from NRC personnel, and to make known their own views on such matters.
Positive effects flow from a face-to-face exchange of ideas and from the ability of the public to have question-and-answer sessions. Usually, the questions range from general subjects and NRC regulations and policies to the licensee's actual compliance with such NRC mandates.
. The Commission is keenly aware of the public interest in this area and will continue to investigate and encourage approaches which will meaningfully enhance, in a sound and practical manner, the positive effects of public participation in the nuclear licensing process. To that end, increased efforts have been and are being made to afford interested members of the public an opportunity to participate in these informal meetings and hearings at convenient locations, usually in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant location.
In addition, providing effective advance notice in widely-disseninated local and national media is obviously necessary and will con-tinue to be part of NRC practice.
Finally, the NRC will attempt to schedule such hearings and meetings with due regard for the most appropriate and convenient time of the day for all concerned.
In some of the instances noted above, meetings and hearings have continued through the evening well into the early morning hours.
Public participation in the NRC regulatory process is not, however, a goal which can be pursued without regard for budgetary and personnel limitations.
The Commission must take into account reductions in its financial resources and limitations on its personnel strength in pursuing the fulfillment of all of the NRC's responsibilities and objectives.
In addition, the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sholly v. NRC, No. 80-1691 (Nov. 19, 1980), creates further uncertainties for NRC budgetary and personnel resources, pending possible Supreme Court review of that decision.
The impact of Sholly on the NRC's responsibility to
+
. hold formal adjudicatory hearings, if not reversed by the Supreme Court or legislatively, is potentially substantial, and is presently undergoing close scrutiny. Any increase in the number of formal hearings that are ultimately-required to be held, above estimates made prior to Sholly, will obviously have fiscal and personnel impacts on the NRC's ability to hold informal hearings and meetings that are discretionary in nature.
Accordingly, making informal hearings mandatory in all operating license proceedings, as the petitioners have requested here, is not appropriate at this time and we decline to formalize the use of informal hearings as a requirement in all such cases.
Information concerning proposed NRC licensing actions is P.nd will continue to be available in the Federal Register and in NRC Public Document Rooms.
Current NRC regulations already provide an avenue for members of the public to request that certain licensing or enforcement actions be taken.
See 10 CFR 2.206.
Interested members of the public may also request and inter-vene in adjudicatory hearings pursuant to Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act providing they can demonstrate the requisite interest at stake, the
" standing" requirement.
10 C.F.R. 2.714; see Portland General Electric Company (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 l
(1976).
Nonetheless, the Commission has discretion to order hearings upon request even where standing has not been shown.
Public Service Company of 1
l Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-10, 11NRC438,439(1980).
Limited participation in NRC proceedings by non-parties is also permitted under the current rules.
l I
4 In our view these avenues, together with the above-described NRC practice of holding informal hearings and meetings where circumstances warrant, are sufficient to ensure effective public participation in the HRC regulatory process.
Mandatory diversion of additional NRC resources to informal public meetings or hearings in every type of license proceeding throughout the entire country, as petitioner seeks here, would adversely affect the ability of the NRC to fulfill its fundamental environmei. cal, health, and safety statutory responsibilities.
Substantial delays in the licensing of nuclear power plants could also result, since even minor license amendment actions would have to await conclusion of the informal hearings.
The Commiss!on needs to maintain some measure of control in deciding-when circumstances warrant the holding of informal public hearings or meetings, and cannot allocate, in advance, the substantial resources necessary to meet the full breadth of the petitioner's request absent a stronger showing of deficiencies in our current practice and of substantially greater benefits to be gained.
The TMI experience, with over 70 informal meetings in'1980 alone, demonstrates that the NRC can and will exercise its discretion to involve the public in a substantial manner in deserving situations.
(2) The Right of Persons Not Attempting to Intervene to Request Formal NRC Hearings.
Under current NRC rules, persons seeking to intervene in NRC proceedings must meet a traditional threshhold requirement to show how their interests will be affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
(d). See also, Portland General Electric Concany, supra; Public Service Company of Indiana, suora.
The purpose of this requirement of " standing" is
a to establish that participants in the hearing process will contribute in a meaningful way to the development of a complete record on health, safety and environmental issues. This ensures that the public funds used to provide the adjudicatory resources for such proceedings will not be expended on matters which are of no relevance to the issues then being adjudicated.
Petitioner suggests, however, that any person should be able to request an adjudicatory hearing, irrespective of whether that person can show any personal stake in the outcone of the hearing and also irrespective of whether that person intends to participate in the hearing itself. We have difficulty in finding significant positive aspects in such a proposal, particularly in light of the above-mentioned practical benefits which result fran employing the well-accepted standing requirement.
The petitioner's suggestion would essentially abrogate the standing requirement entirely while creating certain anomalous and costly situations.
For example, although at times intervenors
~ pose views which differ from those of a licensee / applicant or the NRC staff, it is not difficult to conceive that adoption of petitioner's proposal would lead to enpaneling a licensing board and holding a hearing without any participation by a party taking a differing position on the issues.
- Indeed, petitioner does not state what the issues might be at such a hearing, since the proposed rule change does not require the person requesting the hearing even to identify such issues with particularity. Adjudicatory hearings held under these circumstances would not contribute to the enhancement of the NRC's ability to protect the public health and safety and, in fact, would seem to be an expenditure of NRC resources without any benefit being gained.
l L
. (3) Furnishing of Docket-Related Papers and Notices of All Hearings, Con-ferences and Informal Proceedings.
Petitioner would amend 10 CFR 2.715 to provide for service of all docket-related papers ("all pleadings and papers of record") to any person so requesting, whether or not a participant in the proceeding. This would be an expansion of current practice that seems unnecessary in light of the steps the NRC presently takes to ensure that members of the public have reasonable access to all docket-related papers, notices, and other material.
NRC Local Public Document Rooms (LPDR's) are situated near the site of each licensed or proposed nuclear power plant in the United States.
Each LPDR contains the entire file of docket-related papers for that site, along with other NRC documents of general public interest.
The main NRC Public Document Room in Washington has all dockets and corresponding docket-related papers on file as well as most other publicly-available NRC documents.
The LPDR's can usually obtain additional materials for persons requesting them on short notice.
Finally, the Freedom of Infonnation Act is available'to persons desiring to obtain documents
~
which would not ordinarily be placed in an LPDR or in the main NRC PDR in Washington.
We are confident that these methods adequately provide interested members of the public access to NRC documents, particularly those related to a specific proceeding.
Nationwide service upon request would in our view be an unjusti-fiable expense and would not measurably add to public knowledge regarding NRC proceedings.
In addition, the Comptroller General has recently ruled
. that Section 502 of the 1981 fiscal year Energy and Water Development Appro-priations Act (P.L.96-367) prohibits the NRC from providing certain docu-ments and transcripts free of charge to non-applicant parties in adjudicatory proceedings.
See CG Opinion No. B-200585 (Dec. 3, 1980).
Certain aspects of the petitioners proposal would, therefore, seem to be contrary to the Comptroller General's position.
In its present form,10 CFR 2.715(b) requires that the Secretary of the Commission serve notices of hearing upt n all persons regJesting such notices.
In practice, a docket list relating to each nuclear licensing matter is compiled by the Office of the Secretary, and persons on this list receive direct notification of all hearings, pre-hearing conferences, oral arguments, and other formal proceedings associated with.that docket.
Hence, a portion of petitioner's request in this area is already current practice. Moreover, all formal proceedings are noticed in the Federal Register and in local publications selected as being those reasonably calculated to provide the widest notice to the largest number of potentially affected people.
Every effort, including advertisements and press releases, is made to notify the public of informal public meetings to be held near the site.
We conclude that the thrust of petitioner's proposal to amend 10 CFR 2.715(b) ai to the
,4 furnishing of notices of hearings is fully satisfied by current NRC rules and procedures.
(4) Location and Scheduling of Hearings and NRC-Licensee / Applicant Meetings.
Finally, petitioner requests that all hearings and NRC-licensee / applicant 4
I i
I
. meetings be held at a site and at times which will maximize attendance by a majority of persons potentially affected. Most adjudicatory hearings are already held near the relevant nuclear reactor site, usually in the nearest sizeable city or town.
Appellate oral arguments in adjudicatory proceedings are, however, generally heard in the Washington, D.C. area.
Public meetings of a more informal nature are also ordinarily held near the site, particularly when they involve issues relating to the nuclear plant. Meetings with licensees or applicants may be held either near the plant or reactor site or in Washington, depending on the nature of the meeting, the convenience to the parties involved, and urgency of the meeting.
Except for informal contacts between the NP,C staff and the licensee or applicant (telephone conversations, discussions during site visits, etc.), NRC staff-licensee /
applicant meetings are generally open to the public and are announced in advance.
As noted above, this "Open Meetings" policy is fully described in a policy statement issued on June 23, 1978.
It pro-vides that "All meetings conducted by the NRC technical staff as part of its review of a particular domestic license or permit application (including an application for an amendment to a license or permit) will be open to attend-ance by all parties or petitioners for leave to intervene in the case." The scheduling and location of such meetings is arranged, where possible, with the intent of allowing all interested parties to attend. This has, in some instances, resulted in meetings being held outside of normal business hours, as petitioner appears to suggest.
- 15'-
Requiring that all fomal and infomal hearings and meetings nomally be held proximate to the actual or proposed nuclear plant site would not, in most cases, increase public conveniance.
Such reactor sites are not located, for obvious reasons, in high population dansity areas.
Most interested members of the public would reside in a nearby population center, and this is where hearings are held under the current system.
Furthermore, reactor sites are simply not properly equipped to accommodate large public meetings.
We find no demonstrable merit in the petitioner's suggested change to our rules, and we will continue the current practice of holding the majority of adjudicatory hearings and public meetings in a city or town near the operating or proposed power plant site.
As to the petitioner's second point, most adjudicatory hearings are held during nomal business hours.
However, evening or even weekend sessions are occasionally held to pemit intervenors to participate if they are unable to do so during business hou'rs.
Such sessions may also be held to hear state-ments offered by non-parties participating pursuant to 10 CFR 2.715(a).
Special informal public meetings, such as those at Three Mile Island, are usually held during non-business hours.
We decline to accept the petitioner's approach for the timing of hearings and meetings, which implies that evenings and weekends should be preferred, as a matter of course, to regular business hours.
Where the basic purpose of an infomal meeting is to inform the public (as with meetings at Three Mile Island), evening hours have been used frequently, and we expect such
practice to continue.
Normal business hours, however, are more appropriate for the conduct of agency business in formal proceedings or in official meetings with the licensee or applicant. There are simply more hours and days available for the conduct of business if normal working hours are-u til ized. Licensing hearings can be a lengthy process, and would be even more time-consuming if petitioner's suggestion were adopted.
We conclude that the efficient conduct of hearings and meetings requires that they generally take place during normal business hours on weekdays.
As we have noted above, special arrangements are often made to accommodate members of the public wishing to appear at the hearing but unable to do so during business hours.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission denies the petition for rulemaking filed by the Citizens Advisory Board.
A copy of the Commission's letter of denial is available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of March, 1980.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission I
1 I
-,--mq m,
F
- I',
e s
t k
9 ENCLOSURE B 4
P I
I I
f i
l l
l t
h 4
Alan H. Kirshen, Esquire Citizens Advisory Board Creighton University School of Law 2133 California Street Omaha, Nebraska 68178
Dear Mr. Kirshen:
This is in response to the Petition for Rulemaking which you filed on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board, requesting amendments to certain sections of 10 CFR Part 2.
After careful review and consideration of your proposal, the Commission has decided to deny your petition. The reasons for this denial are explained in the enclosed Notice of Denial of Petition for
'emaking.
Sincerely, Samuel J. Chilk Secretary O
r.--
e
s
,--ee
..r,-
-y---,
-w,
,,w-
-ee
-w
Se (
. g 9
~ *Id
/
p
.. = n -
~
'f;NM. :.V
,\\'
I, [',
e r
t e
ENCLOSURE C q
4 0
.4 l
l i
e I
e o
1 l
+
F 9
4
+
./,-A
+
s f
s.
s
f 1
\\,s Enclosure C
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
Enclosed for your infomation are copies of a Notice of Denici of Rulemaking in Docket No. PRM-2-10, a petition filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency for the Omaha, Nebraska / Council Bluffs, Iowa region.
The petition was filed on March 13, 1980, and was published for conment in the Federal Register on April 17, 1980. 45 Fed. Reg. 26071.
Thirteen public comments were received, all of which opposed the petition.
Petitioner sought a variety of amendments'to the Comission's Rules of Practice (10 CFR Part 2) aimed at increasing public participation in, and public understanding of, NRC licensing proceedings. The Notice of Denial explains how current NRC rules and procedures address these concerns.
The petition is denied because the specific amendments sought are either unneces-sary or would result in increased cost and delay in the licensing process with no commensurate gain in public health and safety.
Sincerely, Howard K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
,c-
.-y-,-
--r
- -. - +
.+
~
.7,. 7 3,
p. p.,..
_y pm_, 7 -,
.y.
-o-.
r-e,,
e.
x
.i, :-,..w,..v
~
{
.=f2a y
e.g e
- f ey
'g,
- ,.r,
.o s
1
- A.,
e
- .. g,1, 6
G w
Y.w O
e */
N
~
v g
5
}
/
/
[
's Enclosure D e
0 e
a 4
s 1
^4-4 g
% g% 'l
- 4.,,e se'-<.).
l
. x
.a
,\\
'd'
. S. p*-*
y e
g
,a',6 4
a
(
ii i
=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In re " Petition for Rule Making)
Docket No. Pgm -2_-lo
~
~
pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.802
)
~
PETITION FOR RULE MAKING COMES NOW the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, and for its Petition for Rule Making states as follows:
1.
The Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) was created by said Agency, a council 1
)
of public officials in the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa metropolitan area, to serve in an official advisory capacity to thah body in the planning of matters of concern to the metropolitan area, and to provide a meana of review and citizen input with respe'et to matters of community or regional concern, independent of official MAPA action or position.
2.
By virtue of the public interest in its safety and l
well--being, and by virtue of recent events which have caused public concern about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy facilities, and by virtue of the growing Governmental i
recognition of the desirability of public input into Govern-l mental decisionmaking processes, as exemplified by the :
number of statutes and regulations requiring citizen advisory I
boards and/or public hearings as a part of the administrative
\\'
i s CU y'
)\\k i S
[r,\\k T.-
...r.,
p process, including particularly the Administrative Procedure Act an'd 5 U.S.C. 5 554 (c) theNeof,aninformalpublichearing should be required in every instance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating '
license; provision should be made for any interested person to be permitted to request a formal hearing pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.105, without being required to intervene and make the showings required by 10 CFR S 2.714; all interested persons should be permitted to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding for issuance, amend-ment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license; and all interested persons should have the opportunity to observe all aspects of a licensing pro-caeding by the scheduling of such proceedings at a place reasonably proximate to the facility in question.
3.
To the ends of establishing a procedure for an informal public hearing, Petitioner proposes as follows:
a.
10 C.F.R. S 2.105 should be amended as follows:,
If a formal hearing is not required by the a.
Act or this chapter, and if the Commission has not found that a formal hearing is in the public interest, it will, prior to acting thereon, cause to be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for:
(1)
A license for a facility; (2)
A license for receipt of waste radioactive material from other persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by the waste disposal licensce; or; (3)
An amendment of a license specified in paragraph (a) (1) or (2) of this section and which involves a significant hazards consideration;
(,
()
1 (4)
Any other license or amendment as to which the Commission determines that i
an opportunity for an informal public 1
hearing should be afforded, or as to which a hearing is requested by 5 or more persons.
t In the case of an application for an operating license for a facility of a type described in 5 50.21(b) or 5 50.22 of this chapter or a testing facility, a notice of opportunity for hearing shall be issued as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed.
i b.
The notice of proposed action will set forth:
(1)
The nature of the action proposed; (2)
The manner in which a copy of the safety analysis and of the ACRS report, if any, may be obtained or examined.
c.
The notice of proposed action will provide that, within thirty (30) days from the date.of publication of the notice in.the FEDERAL REGISTER, or such lesser period authorized by law as the Com-mission may specify:
l (1)
Th3 applicant may file a Request l
for a Formal Hearing; and (2)
Any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding may file a petition for leave to intervene;'and (3)
Any five (5) persons whose interest may be affected by the proceeding may file a Request for a Formal Hearing.
d.
If no request for a formal hearing is filed within the time prescribed in the notice, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will cause to be published in one or more newspapers' of general circulation reasonably proximate to the facility or site of waste disposal, a Notice of Informal Public Hearing (or other Notice reasonably calculated to apprise all interested parties), which will set forth the nature of the action proposed, together with the time, date and place of an informal public hearing on said proposed action, at which all interested persons may appear, pose questions, obtain answers and make comments to the licensee, other appropriate repre-1 sentatives of vendors and/or consultants of the licensee, the staff of the Commission.
The time and place of said informal public hearing shall be i
established to make same reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected by the 3
action proposed.
~ _,_ _ - _. _ __, _.. _ _ __-_ _.-,.... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _... _ - _ _ _ _,
7...
_ _ = _.
(.
(.
- a.
An informal public hearing will be reported under the suparvision of the presiding officer by the best practicable means.
Following a brief presen-tation by the licensee and other appropriate 4
representatives of vendors and/or consultants of the licensee with respect to the action proposed, the staff of the Commission may make such presen-tation as the circumstances shall warrant.
There-after, all interested persons shall have the opportunity to ask questions, obtain answers to j
the best of the ability of the licensee, represen-tatives of vendors and/or consultahts, and the i
staff of the Commission, as appropriate, and to make comments; provided, however, that such questions i
and comments shall be germane to the action proposed.
l Such questions and comments shall be considered by the Commission and its staff, and by Atomic Safety and i
Licensing Appeal Boards in their respective delib-erations.
Any such questions or comments which are not germane shall not be considered.
f.
If a requ'est for a formal hearing is filed within the time prescribed, as hereinabove set forth, the Comrr.ission or an atomic safety and licensing board designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request and/or petiti'on and the Secretary or the designated atomic safety and licensing board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
If such request for 1
formal hearing shall be denied, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards shall proceed to convene an informal public hearing in accordance with this Section.
i g.
Applications for facility licenses under i
section 103 of the Act and for facility operating licenses under section 104b of the Act as to which any person intervened or sought by timely written notice to the Commission to intervene in the construction permit proceeding to obtain a determination of antitrust considerations or to advance a jurisdictional basis for such determination are also subject to the provisions of SS 2.101(b) and 2.102(d).
b.
In Sections 2.750., 2.751. Title 10, CFR the word " formal" should be inserted before the word " hearing"-
wherever it appears.
-.--m
..e---,mi-w,-,
m,-.,,m,..
.-*.,.,-,.,m,-,,
e--
,,--,,.,.,-#,,.,,,_,.y9-,,,,-y
...,,-,y,m.--.
,.w.,yw---.
w,--~~
,...e,,
(
< r l
c.
10 CFR S 2.757 should be modified to add the following:
i (e)
The provisions of this Section shall be applicable to informal public hearings as well as formal hearings.
4.
To the end of permitting interested persons to requeet for a formal hearing without being required to intervene and make formal showings, Petition proposes as follows:
a.
10 CFR S 2.105 should be modified as hereinabove ll set forth.
4 b.
10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (2) should be modified as follows:
" A Petition for Leave to Intervene shall set forth with particularly the interest of the petition in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to intervene, with particular reference to the factors in paragraph (d) of this Section, and the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner' wishes to intervene.
A request for formal hearing shall set forth generally the i
interest of the requestor in a formal hearing, the reasons why an informal hearing is insufficient in the premises; the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceedings as to which a formal hearing is sought; and, l
if no petition for leave to intervene has been filed, the reasons why a formal hearing should be held in the absence of any petition for leave to intervene.
c.
10 CFR S 2.714 (e) should be modified to add the following:
i (4)
Avoiding evidenca and argument not related to the specific aspect or I
aspects of the subject matter of the pro-ceeding for which a formal hearing has been sought or as to which a petition for leave to intervene has been directed.
I l
.' u
(
In the absence of any intervenors, a formal hearing should proceed in accordance with Section 2.715, of this Title.
5.
To the end of permitting all interested persons to participate in a limited manner in all aspects,of a proceeding,
~
i Petitioner proposes as follows:
a.
10 CFR S 2.715 should be modified as follows:
(1) A person who is not a party shall be permitted to make a limited appearance by making an oral or written statement of his position on the issues at any session of the hearing, prehearing conference or special prehearing conference, within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the presiding officer.
He may, in the discretion of the presiding i
officer, be permitted to otherwise participate in the proceedings within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the pre-siding officer.
(2)
The Secretary will give notice of all hearings, ' pretrial conferences, special l
pretrial conferences, oral arguments and any l
informal proceedings to any person who requests l
it prior to the issuance of the notice, and will furnish copies of all such notices to
~
any persons who so request thereafter.
The Secretary shall further furnish copies' of all pleadings and papers of record to any person who requests same, and shall further furnish copies of all papers as they become of record to any person who so requests.
All memoranda of forthcoming meetings betwuen Commission staff and representatives of a licensee and/or representatives of vendors and/or consultants of licensees, and all minutes of such meetings, shall be transmitted to the Secretary for inclusion in the record of such pro-ceedings, and may be' transmitted directly by Commission personnel-to interested persons who have made a request, in lieu of transmittal by l
the Secretary.
i w-
,,,..e..v.,
.---=-~e,--.--,,-,-,--.--,-i,+-ve-v,e
,eww
--,,w--,c.
-=----,,-r-e
- w,-
,w w e w ei
---w-
-+
a---
(-
(i
..i-6.
To the end of permitting all interested person to have the opportunity to be iniormed as to all aspects of a proceeding for license issuance, -amendment, modificatien, 4
suspensica or revocation, and to the end of permitting public access to all aspects of such proceedings, Petition proposes the following:
a.
10 CFR S 2.715 should be modified as hereinabove set forth.
b.
10 CFR S 2.751 should be modified as follows:
(a)
Except as may be required by the Act, all informal hearings, formal hearings, pretrial conferences, special pretrial confer-ences, oral arguments, and all informal pro-ceedings, including meetings between Commission staff and representatives of the licensee and/or representatives of consultants and/or vendors for the licensee shall be public.
All hearings shall be held at a site and time reasonably calculated to make same reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed, which should normally be proximate to the facility concerned.
All pretrial conferences, special pretrial conferences, and informal proceedings shall, upon the request of any interested party, similarly be held at a site and time reasonably calcu-lated to make some reasonably accessible to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed.
Notice of such pro-ceedings shall be disseminated sufficiently in advance of same ac to allow time for such a '
request to be made, and such proceedings re-scheduled if required.
i 7.
Petitioner asserts that the foregoing request for rule making are in the public interest and should be handled in accordance with Subpart H, Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.801 et sec.
c y
-wm 7
-_--,,-.,,e,y-, -, - -
- r
,,y_,
'r
- [
f ~)
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Commission
)
initiate rulemaking procedures'in accordance with the foregoing Petition for Rule Making.
Respectfully submitted,
~
CITIZ VISORY BOARD METR i AREA PLANNING AGETCY N
/
.s.
Peter M. L.tma, Chairman A1 WIrshen, Chairman Citizens Advisory Board Nadtural Resources Committee Ci :izens Advisory Board Alan H. Kirshen, Attorney in fact for said Citizens Advisory Boar @
Creighton University School of Law 2133 California Street Omaha, NE 68178 l
l l
l l
l l
t
(,
- ~i UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
In re Petition for Rule Making)
Docket No.
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.802 )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Petition for Rule Making in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons:
Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Le Boeuf, Leicy & Macdae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Joseph R. Gray, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Lloyd C. Shalla General Manager Omaha Public Power District 1623 Harney Street Omaha, NE 68102 Harold Denton, Esq.
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/1/ ;
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
/
Washington, D.C.
20555
[./
5 1
f V
Alan H. 'dirshen, Attorney March 13, 1980 u,
~
r-
m.MW$*
$PO'h7
"% $q T
%O 7M N w'.-7
-'-Fi*,.
a S"y
^ -
f g
c.)3.,.
- e. t r, 'f r. h f.e Se., sf.e 4,r.:. a v.
a, s
v,.
-,.<s,.
- N, 1 w. i., -**
se,, - A T *s s
4, 4. s.
e c'
.1 t,
.'. y.,, aO[
u~,
a
.,1,1 u.,<.
.)-
,a
,'1,
,u,
- R,>' '-
t
/,,g,'. ;
- z.j * *,e e
r y-a 8
4-t
- e.. *f ' n' =
hW.<
43' s
F e-a..% '.
m k
ENCLOSURE.E e
+
'd G
O e
9
Enclosure E m
Proposed Rules 7 S- '*~
Vol 43. No. Fe Thursday. April 17. 1980 Ths secton cf the FECERAL AEGISTER Acontssts:A copy of the petition for hearing. The amendment requested by conta,ns not,ces to tre ocche of me rulemaking is available for public the petitioner would also specify how propcsed asuance of rues and Icapection in the Commission's Pub!!c the informal public hearing should be rotat:ons The pupcse of these nonces Document Room.1717 H Street. N.W.
conducted and reponed. Conforming e
b to S'" mested pesons an Washington. D C. A copy of the petition changes of a technLa! nature to 10 CFR f
opportuwf to partccate in me rW may be obtained by writing to the 2.750 " Official reporten transcript" and 7 P" ' '* ** *d S*" "' **
"*8 Division of Rules and Records. Office of 2.757 " Authority of presiding officer to Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory regulate procedure in a heanng" are also Commission. Washington. D C. 20555.
proposed.
All pers no who desire to submit IL The peutioner also proposes to NUCLEAR REGut.ATORY wntten comments or suggestions permit interested persons to request a COMMISSION concerning the petition for rulemaking formal hearing without being required to should send their comments to the intervene as a party (which they now 10 CFR Part 2 Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Inust do under the Commission's (Docket No. PfM6-2-101 Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
existing regulations) by amending to Washington D.C.20555. Attention:
CFR 2.714. " Intervention." The pnneipal Citizens Advisory Board of the Docketing and Service Branch.
changes which the pet 2tioner proposes Metropoiltan Area Planning Agency; FOR FURTHER WORMADON CONTACn to make are as follows:
Filing of Petition for Rulemaking Joseph hL Felton. Director. Division of (a) Add the following sentence to Ru R co AotNcy:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory g
9n c ear Regulatory ue i for formal hearing sha!! set forth Commission.
Commission. Washington D.C. 20555.
guera'ly the m:erest of the requator in a ACTtoN: Publication of Petition for Telephone:301:492-7211.
formal bean =3. the reasons w by an infor=al Rulemakmg from the Citizens Advisory SUPPt.EMcMTARY woRMaDOM:L UndEr b"m"8 I' I"'"EC8"' IA **
E"""" **
suc c upect or uncts of me subject Board of the Omaha. Nebraska. Council existing Commissin regulations,
$' fu'n Uard if n j
D uffs. Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning specified proposed licensing actions ution Agency.
must be pre. noticed by publication in for leave to intervene has been filed. the the Federal Register before a license can renons why a formal heanns should be held suuuaan The Nuclear Regulatory issue.10 CFR 1105. " Notice of Proposed in the abunce of any pention for taave to Commission is pubbshing for public Action." lists the types of actions interuns.
comment a petition for rulemaking filed requiring pre. notice. It permits the (b) Add the following item (4) to before the Commission on March 13.
license applicants tn request a heanng 2.714(e)-'
1980 by Alan H. Kirshen. Esquire, on and any person whose interest may be N ^ *' "8 "d" '"d '#3""' " '
behaf 'lthe Citizens Adytsory Board of affected b the Proceedm3 to file a related to tne specific aspe:t er aspecta of the Y
the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency.
petition for leave to intervene. If a subject matter of the proceedica for wht:h a cn official advisory boatd in the Omda. timely heanng request or petition for formal hearing has been sought or as to Nebraska. Council Bluffs. Iowa area.
leave to intervene is not filed. the which a pention for leave to mte:vene has This petition. which has been assigned Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation been directed.In the abunce of any Docket No. PRM-2-10. requests that the or Directcr of Nuclear Material Safety intervenors. a formal hearing should proceed in accordance wie i m of dme.
Commission amend to CFR Part 2.
and Safeguards. as appropriate, will
" Rules of Practica for Domestic issue the license.
IIL The petitioner urges the Ucensing Proceedings." to require an The petitioner requests the Commission to amend to CFR 2.715.
l informal public beanna is eve?y Comn:ission to amend to CFR 2.105 to
" Participation by a person not a party'*
instance of lasuance, amendment.
require proposed licensing actions io be in a manner which in its view would modification, suspension or revocation pre. noticed if a heanns is requested by permit allinterested persons to of a facility operating license. The five or more persons. In addition, tha participate in a limited manner in all petition also requests specific petitioner requests that i 2.105 be aspects of a proceeding. In general, unendments to Part 2 designed.in amended to permit any five persons amended 2.715 would:(a) permit petitioner's view, to permit interested whose interest may be affected by the persons making liraited appearance persons to request a formal hearing proceeding to file a " Request for a statements to ~otherwise participata In i
without being required to intervene, to Formal Hearing."If a timely request for the proceedings within such limits and participate in a limited manner in all a formal hearing is not filed. the on such conditions as may be fixed by i
j aspects of such proceedings, and to petitioner requests that the Director of the presiding officer;"(b) require the observe all aspects of a proceeding by Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Secretary to p ovide notice of all sc.heduling the proceedmg at a place Director of Nuclear Material Safety and beanngs, pretrial conferences. special reasonably proximate to the facility in Safeguards, as appropriate, be required pretnal conferences, oral arguments and
, er
~ question.The petitioner proposes to publish a " Notice of Informal Public any informal proceedings to persons sigmficant amendments to 10 CFR 2.105.
Hearing"in one or more newspapers of requesting such notice:(c) mclude j
2.714,2.715. and 2.751, and conforming general circulation reasonably memoranda of forthcoming treetings
' changes to 10 CFR 2.750 and 2.757.
proximate to the site which describes betwaen the Commission staff and i
DATE: Comment period expires June 16.
the proposed action and specifies the representatives of the licensee, and the 1960 12me, date and place of the informal mmutes of such meetinp. In tre record l
~
2 Federal Reg!st:r / Vd. 45. No. 76 / Thursd:y April 17, 1980 / Propo:ed Rul:s e f the proceeding: and (d) requim the Protection Agency's "Enytronmental licenses, are being amended to include Secretary or other NRC persengel to Radiation Protection Standards for radioactive release !!mits. dose limits.
furnish copi.s of *Il pleadings and Nuclear Power Operutors" (40 CFR Part and other requirements associated with papers of record to any person 190), which require certeln uranium fuel compliance with 40 CFR Part 190. (Fins!
requesting such documents.
cycle facilities to be oprated such that procedures for uranium mills are still IV. Fins!!y. petit!oner proposes that to release of radicactive matenals and under development 40 CFR 190 is not CFRI.Z51THearings to be Public" be resulting radiation doses to 16 ublic effective for uranium mills until cmended. Section 2.751 now reads es are below specified limits. Ths vrorosed December 1960.) Environmental Reports follows:
amendment would also require licensees already required to be submitted with Except as mav be requested pursuant to to submit reports to NRC when those new applications in actiordance with to Section 181 of the Act. all heenrgs will be standards have been or may be CFR Part 51 "1.fcensing and Regulatory c
pubhc unless otherwise ordered by the exceeded.
Policy and Procedures for environmental I
Commission.
cArgs: Comment period expires June 16.
protection." w!!! be required to include he petitioner requests that this 19o0.
information relative to compliance with section be revised to read as follows:
ADORassts: Interested persons are 40 CR Part 190. Section 51.20(c) of to 8wi4d to submit written comments to CFR Part 31 already requires Except as may be required by the Act, ali informal hearinas. formal heartn. pretrial the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Environmental Reports to include a conferences. special pretrial co ences. oral Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
discussion of the status of the facility,a arguments. and all informa! proceedings.
Washington. D.C. 20555. Attentiom compliance with applicable lac!udirs meetings between Commission staff Dacketing and Service Branch.
environmental quality standards cnd representatives of the licensee and/or FOR PURTNEM INFORasATioN CONTACT.
imposed by Federal agencies. The NRC representatives of consultants and/or htr. John W. Hickey. Office of Standards staff will provide guidance to applicants, e:ndors for ths licenses shall be public. All Development. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory licensees, and others as appropriate on Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555 various aspects of compliance with 40 re ab c! a ms e ne reasonab!y accessible to the majority of (phone: 301-443.-5966).
CFR Part 190.
persons poter.tially affected by the action SUPP1.EMENTARY INFOR WATION:The Impact of the PreposedRegulations-proposed, wh;ch should normally be Nuclest Regulatory Commission Compliance with 40 CFR Part 190 is an proximate to the facihty concerned. All proposes to amend its regulations in 10 existing EPA requirement and the NRC pretnal conferences special pretnal CFR Part 20. " Standards for Protection staffis already working to assure that conferences, and infcrmal proceedings shall.
Against Radiation." to incorporate the its licensees will comply. De proposed eX'lling requirement or Compliance regulations would incorporate the 21a y e el &
s te nd e
revonably calculated to make some [ sic]
', 40 CFR Part 190. " Environmental existing requrlement into NRC reannably accessible to the maiority of adiation Protection Standards for regulations and add a new reporting persens potentially affected by the action
.iuclear Power Operations." The requirement Since the Environmental proposed. Nouce ci such pre:eedings shall be Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Protection Agency has already issued an dineminated suffic:ently in advance of same published 40 CFR Part 190 on January environmental statement assessing the as t3 a!!ow time for such a request to be 13.1977 (42 I R 2858). In accordance with impact of 40 CFR Part 190 (EPA 520/4-mrde. and such proceedings res:heduled if a Memorandum of Understanding 76-016. November 1976), the nWd.
between EPA and the former Atomle Commission has concluded that any The petitjoner states that this revised Energy Commission (38 FR 24936.
impacts associated with the preposed provision is intended to permit September 11.1973). NRC is responsible rules themselves will be insignificant, interested persons to be fully informed for enforcing the provisions raf 40 CFR and an additional envircemental impact cf end have access to all aspects of Part 190 for NRC licensees.
statement is not required.
lic:nsing proceedings.
Provisions of 40 CFR Pbrf 190-40 Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of D;ted at Washington. D.C. this 11th day of CE Part 190 requires certain uranium 1954, as amended, the Energy ApnL 1980.
fuel cycle facilities to be operated such Reorganization Act of1974, as amended.
F r the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
that relesses of radioactive material and and section 553 of title 5 of the United Samuel J. Chilk.
resulting radiation doses to the public States Code, notice is hereby given that Secretaryof the Commission.
are below specified limits. De effective adoption of the following amendments dates for complianen are December 1.
to 10 CFR Part 20 is contemplated. All
[*
1979. for most operations: December 1.
Interested persons who desire to submit 1960. for uranium mills: and January 1.
written comments or suggestions for 1983, for discharges of krypton-85 and censideration in connection with the 10 CFR Part 20 lodine-129. Variances may be granted proposed rules should send them to the by NRC under certain circumstances.
Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Environmental Radiation Protection ProposedAmendments-The Nucleat Regulatory Commission.
Standards for Nuclear Power proposed amendments state that NRC Washington, D.C. 20555. Attention:
Operation licensees must comply with 40 CFR 190.
Docketing and Service Branch by June Aotwcv: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory and would require licensees to submit 16.1980.
Commission.
reports to NRC when 40 CFR 190 limits Actiosc Pro #osed rule.
have been or may be violated.
PART 20-STANDARDS FOR Comments are particularly rquested on PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION sumuAny: ne Nuc!ett Regulatory the proposed reporting requirements.
- 1. A new paragraph (c)is added to Commission (NRC or Commission)is Implementation-Tfie NRC staffis 120.105 to read as follows:
cornidering amending its regulations to already implementing 40 CFR Part 190 in inc:rperste the existing requirement for accordance with the Memorandum of f 20.105 PermissitWe levels of radiation in certain uranium fuel cycle licensees to Understanding mentioned above.
unrestreeted arosa, comply with the Environmental Existing licenses, except uranium mi!!
,,,-n w.-q 7,.,,a < yg. g-v r ~ e< :., mm.,.way y _ r m pmm--m
~,.~;o p s.we,,
t.p,; aye p := rpsyst t
g.
o
- ;D'
- i
, m
~
r x
e
.-+,r.
7
- t
,,v.g., g i.
e
_,y;
(
_'4, 1,%,, s Pt 1,
s
, *=
0 i
)
4 o
S e
o L
Enclosure F 1
1 i
e G
m 9y
.Y I
d'<.
g+,
.._..__._.l__._-__
~
i
~. __ l. Z_ _ -
~
e-
- 64. O,, e c.
LowzxsTzrx, NzwxAN. Rzzs, AXzI. RAD & Toz.I.
sOSS COM M EC?tCUT vC N u t. N. W.
.o..
6... = s
- c..
wa s M I N GTO N. O. C. 20 0 3 6 s
=,
- C:l.lll..
sam...a.. oo 4'
ooce.
vsv h
k JUN DOCKET NUMBER
~~~..a 16 reso,
PETITION Rut.E _gau _2.-io
{ cft:a g 3 g '3
.'", 's."d*"'Z"'"
(45 FR 2/470
'*%t? -
- ::'."=
- =
- :::::"
anne 1s, 1980 y
a
==:::::.
m e
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
By Federal Register Notice dated April 7, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 26071), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission re-quested public comments on a March 13 petition for rule making filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metro-politan Area Planning Agency, an official advisory board in the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa area.
The petition proposes significant amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
The following comments respond to the petition, and are offered on behalf of Boston Edison Company, Combustion Engineering, Inc., Houston Lighting & Power Company, Northern Indiana Public Service Company, and Puget Sound
& Light Company.
Petitioner proposes that 10 C.F.R. S 2.105 be amended "to require proposed licensing actions tc be pre-noticed if a hearing is requested by five or more persons."
We strenuously object to this proposal.
If it were adopted, every licensing action, including even those which are solely administrative and of no safety significance, would have to be pre-noticed if five persons so request.
How-ever, Section 189 of the Atemic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
- 2239, permits the Commission to approve, without prior notice, a proposed licensing action which does not present a sig-nificant hazards consideration.
The proposed rule would 7egate that statutory discretion.
Petitioner has not
, _)
hmonstrated why the Ccmmisslon should take such action.
n y,
Ackr'owifrdsd D*/ 03rd., h b
9
,,,,.-----,.my
,,,-.c,,-,,.--,r,--
w.-
c,
._w,
,,,.,.,y w,-,, _ _
,,,,,-,w.,
,,.,.,._,,-,_,,rwc,,_,,,,,,.,,,,w_w
.-,.w,,
A.___
. ' Lowcwsrcrw, Nawx4w. R:ss. Ax3LnAn O Tcts.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary a
June 16, 1980 Page Two Since the proposed rule has no apparent rationale / and could require the Commission to hold many unnecessary hearings with attendr.st costs luul potential. delays, we believe it should not be adopted.
Petitioner also proposes that interested persons be permitted to request a " formal hearing" without being re-quired to intervene as a party.
We oppose this proposal.
Tae Commission has, by virtue of its rule making authority under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act, devised two procedures for participation in NRC licensing proceedings:
a person may petition to intervene as a party pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 or may make a limited appearance pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.175.
A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement on the record but is not a party and is not entitled to parti-cipate in the proceeding.
Also, under Section 2.206, interested persons may request an appropriate NRC Division Director to institute a proceeding "to modify, suspend or revoke a license, or for such other action as may be proper."
We believe that NRC's current procedures in Part 2 provide interested persons abundant opportunity to participate formally or informally in NRC proceedings.
Petitioner i
offers no reason why the existing procedures are inade-quate and we know of none.
Petitioner requests that an " informal public hear-ing" be held in each instance where no formal hearing has been requested.
Public meetings can be useful for re-ceiving public comment on issues involving nuclear power plants; such meetings can also permit correction of many public misconceptions.
We therefore endorse the concept of holding public meetings but we do not believe such meetings should be converted into informal " hearings."
The term " hearing" connotes an adversary atmosphere--
witnesses, cross-examination, a record.
If the Commission
[or an appropriate Division Director] determines that a public meeting is warranted, because of the circumstances of the particular proceeding or issues brought to the attention of the Commission,-such a meeting can be sched-uled to discuss, not decide the issues.
Petitioner also suggests amendment of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.715 to permit expanded participation by limited appeareas in hearings.
We believe this amendment is unnecessary since Section 2.715 was amended (43 Fed. Reg. 17798, May 26, 1978) to permit interested persons further
- /
petitioner's proposal appears to be illogical in that j
no mechanism is specified by which the five persons
~
would become aware of a proposed licensing action upon which to request a hearing before a notice had been published.
rLownwrT:nx, NrwMAw. Rats. Ax r.mAa O TcLL
~
Samuel J. Chilt, Secretary June 16, 1980
~#
Page Three opportunity to express their views in the licensing pro-cess.
The proposed notice requirements would clearly im-pose a substantial burden upon the Commission's staff; we believe the Secretary need only provide notice of hearings or conferences at which persons interested in expressing their views could participate.
Also, the Secretary need not be required to serve on any requestor documents al-ready in the Public Document Room; such a requirement would wasta very limited manpower and funds.
Finally, Petitioner requests that 10 C.F.R. 5 2.751 1
be amended to require that virtually all hearings, pre-hearing conferences, and meetings between the Commission staff and representatives of licensees and/or consultants be open to the public and held at a time and place such that the public can attend.
NRC has already implemented many of Petitioner's recommendations (see "Open Meetings and Statement of NRC Staff Policy," 43 Fed. Reg. 28058, June 20, 1978).
Notice is given of prehearing confer-ences, hearings and other special meetings by the NRC.
Prehearing conferences and hearings are usually held in the vicinity of the proposed power plant; thus, poten-tially affected persons can attend.
Fs believe, there-fore, that amendment of Section 2.751 is unjustified and unnecessary.
If Petitioner proposes that all hearings, meetings, etc., be scheduled for evenings in the site vicinity, we object -- again because the proposal would be a misuse of staff manpower and budget.
Sincerely, 0.6 d. 4.x Frederic S. Gr'y a
FSG/gmh
-p Portland GeneralBechicCompany
- m
[1 v
h.__
Wmme cenau s ce-: Ass sant vce Pes ten I
June 11, 1980 o
(*
PRM-2.-10@
DOCKET NUMBER TE)
N PETITION RULE (45 FC2601)
T JUN 16 $80 > g Secretary of the Commission ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch gtnce elthe W '
pting i W C
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission e
B#
/
Washington, D. C.
20555 1@
ca
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 requested in a petition for rulemaking from the Citizens Advisory Board of the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 76, April 17, 1980, Page 26071-72).
In our view, this petition should be denied outright for the following reasons:
1.
One of the funda= ental purposes of having a governmen-tal/ regulatory agency such as the NRC is to provide unbiased, qualified review of licensing issues so as to represent the entire public in a ti=ely manner and not prejudice the rights of the beneficiaries of a power generation facility.
This petition ignores this role of a governmental / regulatory agency.
2.
Requiring an informal public hearing in every instance of issuance, a=endment or =odification of a Facility Operating License would be a deterrent and/or detriment to public health and safety.
The hearing process as requested would be overly burdenso=e, inefficient and l
nonconducive to expeditious improvements in facility l
operation.
3.
Permitting " interested persons" to request a formal hearing and participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding is akia to permitting any l
person to participate in any proceeding at any ti=e l
and is completely subversive to an orderly licensing l
process.
Existing rules governing formal intervention are necessary and sufficient to ensure that persons with bona fide interests are given full opportunity to participate as a party in a proceeding. The public
,j welfare is better served by this approach than by a S ~;
sche =e to enhance the arbitrary role of " interested l
persons".
\\
wm.aaeewem.idr1lEO.nd%
I' I. Sc:. I:w. ::v:. N;:n FD
Portland General EectricCca@Ty Secretary June 11,1980 Page two 4.
Permitting " interested persons" to be fully infor=ed of and have access to all aspects of licensing proceedings would be an unwieldy process providing little, if any, meaningful benefit.
Interested per c.as are adequately informed in accordance with the existing noticing requirements of 10 CFR 2.
5.
The cost-benefit aspects of this petiion compel denial.
i The financial burdens placed upon the licensee would lead to unnecessary rate increases placing an unwarranted financial burden on rate payers.
Your serious consideration of these com=ents is appreciated.
5 Sincerely, l
/
e 4
,_-y-
..,m-w y
w
e,
' 'a
.e DEBEVolSE & LIBERMAN 0800 S EVENTECNTH STR EET, N. W.
WAS HINGTO N, D. C. 2OO3 G sam as a wes.maae e.ma6e. o.msns.
s.sa m s.m. css
,. sos...a,. sea.6s e.a..m t.e,sem s.e s em e.s.ot, s,...
ma6.o6m m..asu.a.s..
t.. seas se sterv.is.
.e 6pam s. ma..s as. s..
c ognmes 4 sa.m. s.
.. m
.u.........
...u,.....
Tite. o.:
....... 6.....
...,...i.e...
taoaeer eeoo
- 6........
6, a.
.a.,.....
June 16, 1980
.....u.......
6..
6.
.. u..
.....u....6v...
u.o DOCKET NUMBER PETIT!ON RULE _PRt.2.-lO y
u Mr. Samuel J.
Chilk f
Ct9
/MTT N
Secretary
- J Fn
=W 5 /
United States Nuclear DW3 RED e
USN'"
g)
Regulatory Commission k
JllN 1 a m, g3,-
~~
washing ton, D.C. 20555 ATTN:
Docketing and Service 8[ [ [ p s Branch E.v.e.
9
%/
RE:
Docket No. PRM-2-10, Petition For Rulemak
- 1 g"C/
To Modify 10 CFR Part 2; 45 Fed. Rea. 26071, Acril 17, 1980
Dear E. chilk :
By the captioned notice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") requested comments on a petition for rulemaking filed before the Commission on March 13, 1980 by Alan H. Kirshen, Esq., on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, an official advisory board in the Omaha, Nebraska - Council Bluffs, Iowa area.
This petition seeks to modify 10 CFR Part 2,
" Rules of Practice For Domestic Licensing Proceedings," to require an informal public hearing in every instance of I
issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license.
The petition also requested certain am'endments to Part 2 designed, in petitioner's view, to permit interested persons to request a formal I
hearing without being required to intervene, to participate in a linited manner in all aspects of such proceedings, and to observe all aspects of a proceeding by scheduling all phases of the proceeding at a place reasonably proximate to the facility in question.
On behalf of Washington Public Power Supply System, we respectfully submit the following comments'.
1 y \\,-
~,
Apnow*cd. c:: by co-d..
f e.
N Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980,
Page Two We believe that the proposed changes in the manner of public participation in NRC proceedingL are unnecessary, in part contrary to law, and detrimental to the efficiency and ef fectiveness of the licensing process.
Since these changes would be contrary to the best interests of everyone-involved in an NRC proceeding, the petition should be denied.
I.
The Petition Should Be Denied This petition must be denied because petitioner has not shown that the NRC's current procedures for public participation, as reflected in the regulations, are inadequate.
A.
Petitioner Has Failed To Demonstrate Any Inadecuacy In Tne Current Reculations The regulations sought to be modified are entitled to a strong presumption of validity and effectiveness, Forester
- v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 559 F.2d 774, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1977), and it is a fundamental requirement that any petition seeking to modify such regulations demon-strate both-the manner in which they are deficient and how the proposed changes would correct these defects. This petition merely states that recent events have caused.public concern about the safety and reliability of nuclear energy f acilities and that public input into governmental decision-making processes is desirable.
It does not discuss the current regulations concerning public participation, let alone demonstrate any way in which they fail to adequately address either or both of these concerns.
Absolutely no basis is given upon which to judge the relative merits of the proposed regulations in relation to the current regu-lations.
Since th.s petition has totally failed to meet the r
9 w
-v3-p, e&r
--,-w
+ -,
g,-
,y-e<
,,-y
-e-r-e-+
q,,e
-w-e-w.
y
-v---
S2nuol J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Three threshold requirement of demonstrating why the present regulations need to be modified (10 CFR 2.802(c))
- /, it should be dismissed forthwith.
B.
The Current Regulations Have Been Held Valid And Adequate Since the purpose of this petition for rulemaking is to change the manner of public participation in NRC pro-ceedings, it must be noted that the current regulations implementing S189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
52239(a), have several times been judicially approved and found to be in accord with Congressional intent regarding the manner and extent of such participation.
- See, e.g., BPI
- v. Atomic Energy Commission, 502 F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974),
and the legislative history cited therein.
The proposed regulations greatly alter the balance of rights and responsi-bilities as to public participation struck in the Act, and thus are contrary to the limits authorized by Congress.
Federal Maritime Commission v. Anglo-Canadian Shipping See Company, Ltd., 335 F.2d 255, 258 (9th Cir. 1964).
II.
The Proposed Informal Hearing Regulations Are Overbroad, Conrusina And Wastetul The petitioner proposes that an informal hearing be held in every instance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of a f aciliy operating license.
In order to do this, petitioner proposes to modify 10 CFR S2.105.
We note but will not dwell on the technical problemt arising from petitioner's failure to mesh his proposal to the structure of the regulations, particularly 52.201 et sec.
The regulation as proposed is unclear and unworkable.
From the dommission's Rules, 10 CFR Part 2,
- /
~~
S2.802(e) cne might infer that it has been determined that this petition contains the since it has been assigned a docket number and published ininf the Federal Register.
We cont'est any such determination.
In our view, tne petition fails to state adequate grounds for the action proposed, and lacks both a statement of the petitioner's arguments with respect to the issues and a discussion of specific instances in which the present rule is " burdensome, deficient, or needs to be strengthened."
.~ -
-. -. = _ _
l-Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Four One example of the detrimental effect of the proposed modifications to 52.105 can be seen in the ability of five or more persons to request that a hearing be held regarding the suspension, etc., of a facility's operating license.
Under tne provisions of Subpart B, it would be within the sound discretion of. the appropriate NRC official whether there are grounds for such a proceeding to be initiated.
That judgment is reviewable.
However, under $2.105(a)(4) as proposed, the Commission would be required to publish notice of the requested action, and under the otner provisions of S2.105, an informal hearing would be mandatory.
The overall result of tnis proposal would be that the initiation of many proceedings which are now discretionary with the appropriate NRC officials would become mandatory upon receipt of a request for any such proceeding from five or more people.
The convening of even a so-called " informal" hearing would entail a much greater expenditure of both licensee and NRC resources than the present procedure, with no assurance of an improvement in safety.
Sound discretion is the essence of effective regulation and enforcement.
The loss of this discretion could have very serious consequences for the ability of the NRC to effectively carry out its duties.
Even if the petition were limited to requiring informal 3
hearings only in the cases of issuance or amendment of facility operating licenses, the practical effects of enacting these proposed changes would be extremely severe.
i l
Since informal hearings would be mandatory in every instance of amendment to an operating license, no matter now incon-sequential the amendment might be, the effects of this proposal will be to dramatically increase the time and expense involved in the licensing process; to require a massive increase in both NRC manpower and funding levels to hold these additional hearings; and to require informal hearings even when there is absolutely no interest in the hearing on the part of anyone other than the Applicant and the NRC, thus rendering many, if.not most, of these hearings a mere empty formality.
The amendments would, without benefit of statutory authority, return the Commission to the era of "due process-itis" which prevailed prior to PL 87-615 (1962), which amended Section 189 of the Act to permit dispensing with unnecessary hearings on every minor license amendment.
The Commission has recently rejected a petition for rulemaking that had the potential for seriously delaying and disrupting the licensing process, noting that
T.
~ '.::
. ~ ^-
~
~ ^ ^ L... :_.....
L..~~
L Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Five It is well established that the adjudicatory process, whether before the courts or legis-lative tribunals, must be conducted in a manner to insure the integrity and orderly dispatch of the proceeding, to avoid undue delay or prejudice to the rights of existing parties and to permit finality in the process.
i 4
Notice of Denial of Petition for Rulemaking of Wells Edd;,eman, Docket No. PRM-2-7, 45 Fed.
Reg. 3534S, 35346, May 27, 1980.
These same considerations, together with the other factors just noted, require that this portion of the petition for rulemaking be denied.
These considerations are generally applicable to the other char.ges requested by petitioner, and are incorporated by reference in the discussions of those proposals.
III.
The Proposed Formal Hearing Regulations Duplicata The Proposed Informal Hearing Regulations The petitioner seeks to amend the regulations so as to allow an interested person to request that a formal hearing be held once a notice of proposed action has been published, but "without being required to intervene and make formal l
showings."
Petition at S4.
The only real ef fect this proposed change would have is that the mere request for a formal hearing would mandate that an informal hearing be held regardless of the merits of the request for the formal hear ing.
(See proposed regulation 52.105(f)).
This proposal is thus objectionable for all the reasons given in Section II above, and should be denied for the same reasons.
In particular, it would change the balance of rights and responsibilities reflected in the statute, Sec. 189.a.
IV.
Proposed Regulations Regarding Limited Participation By Interested Persons In All Aspects Of A Proceeding If promulgated as written, persons not parties to a pro-ceeding would be " permitted to otnerwise participate in the proceedings within such limits and on such conditions as may
,'e s
Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Six be fixed by the presiding of ficer." Petition at SS(a).
Unless this section were to have no meaning, such persons would have to have some " limited" ability to cross-examine witnesses and/or present evidence and/or file proposed findings of f act and conclusions of law.
However, since they would not be parties to the proceeding, no party would have been able to obtain discovery from them (some of whom may not have' been known until the day of the hearing, prehearing conference, etc.), and the parties could thus be unprepared for and denied an adequate opportunity to refute such presentations. This would be a fundamental and exceedingly egregious violation of the parties' most. basic due process rights to a fair hearing.
The proposed notice requirements and the requirement that. copies of all pleadings and papers of record be fur-nished to any person who requests them, regardless of their proven interest in the proceeding, would lead to a number of unnecessary problems.
First, such requirements would be an invitation to litigation by anyone who claimed that he or she did not receive the required notice of the conference, etc. or a copy of a paper and that some aspect of the proceeding thus violated his or her rights.
- Second, these provisions are also capable of massive abuse since it sets no requirements for or limitations on the number of personi whc can request receipt of such notice and copies of all papers.
Thus, every person in the country who desired to obstruct any or all NRC proceedings could request that a copy of all notices or pleadings be sent to him or her.
The potential for mischief is virtually unlimited. Finally, the expense involved of sending notices and/or copies of pleadings and papers to unlimited numbers of people would be a severe strain upon the NRC's budgeted resources.
No showing is made by petitioner as to why it is claimed, if it is so claimed, that the local public document rooms are not serving public needs in this regard.
We oppose the service of notice of forthcoming meetings between Staff and various other parties and the service of the minutes of those meetings upon non-parties.
The Staff itself represents the public interest and thus service upon non-parties is unnecessary to protect whatever public interest exists in these meetings. This requirement also invites litigation over such things as what meetings must be included within the requirement and how complete the minutes must be to adequately apprise interested persons of what was O
... ~. -
I Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Seven ii discussed at those meetings.
The same potential for abuse described above is again present in this requirement.
Here i
again, petitioner does not address any inadequacies in present methods of making information available to interested i
members of the public in the vicinity of the facility.
In sum, petitioner has not demonstrated any way in which current NRC procedures regarding limited participation and making available notice, documents, etc., to interested persons are deficient.. For this reason iad for the potential unwarranted expense and even harm which could result from adoption of the proposed regulations, this portion of the j
petition should be denied.
V.
Proposed Regulation Concerning Holding All Hearings Near The Facility Site The proposed requirement that most, if not all, hearings, conferences, and meetings be public and held at a location convenient' to the site of the f acility and at a time " reasonably calculated to make same reasonably access-ible to the majority of persons affected by the action proposed" is objectionable for all of the reasons given in l
Sections I-IV, above.
The heavy procedural burden of implementing this proposal could only result in drastically increasing the length of time and the amount of money involved in the licensing process.
This is especially i
evident when one focuses on the phrase " meetings between j
Commission Staff and representatives.
Thus, day-to-day interchanges between Applicants and the Staff, who are charged with representing the best interests of the public, would not only have to be pu' lic, but would have to take c
place at a location proximate to the site and at a time convenient for members of the public after the publication of appropriate notice.
This is, in reality, a prescription for bringing the licensing process to a complete halt.
The NRC already has a policy of holding as many hearings i
and prehearings as faasible near the site of the facility and at times calculated to make these proceedings reasonably accessible to interested members of the public.
It has also recently initiated a policy of allowing interested persons to be present at more informal meetings between members of the Staff and the Applicant.
However, to require every meeting to be at a location proximate to the site would only have the detrimental effects stated above.
1L-
MIDDLE SOUTH SERVICES,1NClBOX EICOO/NEW ORLEANS,L.A.70151/(504) 529 5252
.J 3..t b. 0 c., e...S O.N O p.??t e 4
Jtr.e 12, 1980 i.d Ng, o..c.,
6,.i a s i
d' N
00CKET NUMBER ceg PETITION RULE _ PRM-2-l "O
- s t.' vie 3
p g
I 8 g,J-p Secretary of the Ccm:i sten
[
~
U. S. Nuclear Regulatcrf Ccrnission 9
" < 3, k t 4 5 h e. /
Washingtcn, D.C 20555 A
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch y
Pe: Petiticn for Rule:aking Filed N8
by the Citizens Idviscry Board of the Onaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Icwa Metrcpolitan Area Planning Agency Docket No. PPM-2-10
Dear Sir:
Middle South Sereices, Inc., en behalf of the MiMle Scud Utilities System, has reviewed the petitlen for rule: aking filed b/ the Citizew Idviscry Board of the 0 aha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Icwa Metrcpolitan Area Pla.ning Agency.
2.e Middle South Utilities System sereas app:cxirately 1,500,000 electric cust:rers in portices of Arka:tsas, Icuisiana, Mississippi, ard Misscuri. The follcuing c:rpanies are included in the Systen:
Arka:uns Pcwer a:xi Light Ccnpany A h_-Misscuri Pcwer C = any Icuisiana Pcwer and Light Ccr=any Mississippi Power a-d Light Ca. p y l
New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
,)/
Systen Fuels, Inc.
r>
c f
Middle Scuth Energy, Inc.
VI Middle South Services, Inc.
Tne System ccrpanies wish to ex=ress their disagreement with the changes pregesed by the petition. Althcugh the "supccr.i.x; staterent" required by 10 CFR 2.802(c) (3) was not available, the petiticn itself cnly irplies the l
current rules to be deficient. The petitien dces not show the need for a change CEnviN3: v scOLE SOU*H UT1UTIES,1NO.* ARMANSAS POWER & U3MT COMPANY
- A AKANSAS MISSOUAt ACWE A COMPANY LOUISlANA SCWE A & UGHT COMP ANY
- MISSISS ppt pOWE A & UGHT COMPANY
- NEW C ALEANS PUSUC pgaytcE #N=.
l MATIO**TOEC:! DY C3*d e * 'I i
l
J June 12, 1980
- Page -
in the present regulaticns nor analyze the benefits of the proposed change.
For example, MiMla South perceives that the budgetary and perscnnel iW on hX would not be insignificant.
The petitlen's stated goal of increasing public participatien in the govermental decisicn-making pro::ess appears laudable. Mcwever, the real issue raised by the petitica is not increasing public participation but rather the cbstruction and delay of the NBC licensing function. Chee the vie % point of the general public has been deter:rined by current nethods, "five interested perscns" cx:uld further delay an already expensive and lengthy licensing process.
NIC is the representative of the geraral public in a licensing procedure.
Given the extensive opportunities already provided for public irwolvement in the decisions of a "public" agency, we see no justificaticri for a favorable decision on the petition for ruleraking sutritted by the Citizens Mvisory Board of the Q aha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Mency.
In conclusion, we believe that any true benefits that reight be suggested by the preposed rule changes already exist. Middle South does not believe the proposed rule changes will enhance the quality of public participation or the regulatcry and licensing process. We appreciate the opportunity to suhrit these ccrrents and hope that they will be helpful in NBC's response to the peti-tien.
Si:rerely, s/ -
J. D. Pattersca Manager E:wircr ental Affairs JDP:1:e
L EBO EU F, LAM B, LElBY 8 MAcRAE 1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENuc,N.W.
WAS HIN GTo N, D. C. 2003 6 TELEPac.c 203 487730o CAeLe A00 MESS m ANo ALL J. LsBo gur sp.1939-197s LeoM A. ALLcN Ja.
CAM emo M P.M4emAc 4 L E ggsm, wAs miseGTON,0. C-soscow c. sacwcLoca.2= cAusmoN r. maa m A c.2'z a u n,,e g,
- g,,,
,,3..,,,,
m arm Amo A. MAMen TELca; 04F.
ADm'AM C.LC'8' 89 sa le7e cm N cs? 3. S ALLAmo,s.,
snciLA N.m AmswALL
- o. s. mcTem e tnocN ocorrev o C.Sts?
J AM rs 8. MeoR AN E R'e sa.*a TELcCop.tm llb oAvio n.sicas PMILip PAturn usouioAN I.o SmOAOwAT 304**S7 7Be3 TAYLos m. Saloos c cLLsWomTM McM EENeggg g
. gw,gm E, N.Y. lo co s waLUAM o. MommasoN
- CMAmi.cs N. syno gg
~==8=-==m a=
'." "fJf:!L","f-AN.
%"U't;"^u'Tsm..
4 CAgLc ACQaggg S al A N o. o'N ct LL
- 6 sown a.CMAst CKETED
%g!"', "i c's* *g*
"a "JA,t ",,'.*"^"!!!" /T usm;c
}
Len..;,,c.,on.
- s. arcaatk **misw mooca o.rcLo=AN.
c
,cLc
..i.
b*
JoMN A.auor i 81980 > 9 ANoacW cam 3Semo g 0 ; j'.';,";^,"O
Mc*is'."cooNA-iou.
I s
-' a ca = = a- =
[,",CM,,"4, s,i,i,,e Lev,*.
C3 Offiaerth!Sectgtgy vcks,"=e ne oa..' <es.nas s'
L sAuss 4.omcca,= **
JoaN L.omosz.
Che'!!q & $gryj,g
,,ggyo a,,
,g N
Tei.cx asess DC('^s w Awys soscow s.sTmauss "Qj g ",'y*m8 s".sm.*.
0#2'Ch
,,pc Y
mienActsovcNuo sau c s r.so=N son.*'"
LeoNano u.TaostcN 's b
mon Ai.o o.JoN c3 M Am my,e.VoioT **
t (f.
J Aucs A.LA cNN w.micwAm o wacnicL O '
om Amt 3. L..vis o sman o p. watson imeA woom Lovesov Two,aAs A. zicam m csiocNT PAmTN ems WAsD*iNoToM oFFICc a csioc T..mT,.cm. LoNooN orrict June 16, 1980
. AoMiTTco To TMc ossTmicT or Col.uwelA san Samuel J. Chilk, Esq.
DOCKET NUMBER g
Secretary PRM - 2.-l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory FETIT!CN RULE Commission t-g ql Washington, D.C.
20555 I l\\
Re:
Docket No. PRM-2-10:
Petition for Rulemaking to Amend 10 C.F.R.
S52.105 et al.
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On April 17, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a petition for rulemaking filed on March 13, 1980, on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency of Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa.
On behalf of The Detroit Edison Company, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, we are submitting comments on the petition.
It is our position that the petition should be denied.
The petition for rulemaking, if granted, would significantly expand the number of cases in which a formal public, hearing would be required prior to the issuance of an amendment to a construction permit or operating license, would require a so-called informal hearing on every request h
p.u_,..--,:.6/l2%Q:mk u
l\\l
l i
i -
for such an amendment, and would codify formal requirements for meetings convened by the' Commission's Staff to discuss i
or review requests for such amendments.
We believe that
~
the proposed additional requirements for formal hearings and informal-hearings on license amendments are contrary to the Atomic Energy Act.and the' intent of Congress and should not be adopted.
.The proposed additional requirements for meetings conducted by the Commission's Staff are both burdensome and unnecessary; they also should not be adopted.
If the petition were granted, the Commission would be required to conduct a formal hearing in any case where such a hearing was requested by.at least five persons.
The existing requirements for intervention would, -in essence, be abolished.
A formal hearing could be obtained as a matter of course by persons who were unable to establish standing and unable or unwilling to advance any specific contentions.
4 1
l In addition, where no request was made for a formal hearing, the Commission would nevertheless be required.to conduct an informal hearing on each and every application for a license amendment.
While. the petition uses the words " informal hearing," the requested procedure would require the appointment of an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to preside over the informal hearing.
The requested procedure also apparently contemplates some form l
of review of the informal hearing record by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.
Thus, what petitioner.
denominates as an " informal hearing" could well prove to be almost as formal (and as time-consuming) as a full adjudica-tory hearing.
The contemplated procedures would presumably have to be completed before -the Commission could act upon even the most routine license amendment request.
When Congress amended Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S2239, in 1962, it did so to eliminate any requirement for a mandatory hearing, except upon an application for a construction permit.
In addition, i
Congress acted to make it possible for the Commission to approve license amendments without prior notice or hearing where the requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
In passing the 1962 amendments, Congress intended to eliminate hearings "in the absence of bona fide intervention."
1962 U.S. Code, Cong. & Admin.
News 2214.
The amendments to the Commission's regulations requested by petitioner would largely undo the relaxation of hearing requirements adopted by the Congress in 1962.
Such changes to the statutory scheme, if they are to be
~
To require that such technical conferences regularly be held in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant would involve significant additional amounts of Staf f' time, plus significant additional travel expenses.
Moreover, documents needed for Staff review might not be available in the vicinity of the plant and would have to be transported there for the technical meeting.
The Staff should be afforded the flexibility to schedule technical meetings at a convenient time and place, free of any formal, legal requirements.
For all these reasons, we recommend that the Commission deny the subject petition for rulemaking.
Sincerely, b
YGWlJ,
Y 9
l 1
f
@[ O %
Commonwealth Edison h one First National P1323. Chicago, filinoM O
\\
Accr.ss R; ply tJ: Post Ottica Box 767
'd/ Chicago, Imnois 60690 June 16, 1980 9
'E' DOOKET NUMBER c,
s PETmON RUM _PRM-2.-l
\\
Secretary of the Comm(HS Y 2fcO*1I)g Dag en:p*
2 ission U
-l gy!919803[C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ge J
wasnington, DC 20555 c3 ATTENTION:
Docketing and Service Branch D.h y
9
Dear Sir:
C5 l &
Commonwealth Edison Company (" Commonwealth") hereby submits comments in respect of the petition for rulemaking filed by Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency
(" Petitioner") PRM-2-10, 45 Fed. Reg. 26071 (April 17, 1980).
Commonwealth presently holds operating licenses for seven nuclear reactors and construction permits for six additional reactors.
It has also filed an application for early site review for two units to be located in Carroll County, Illinois.
Commonwealth, the re fo re,
has consideraole experience with the nuclear licensing process and a large stake in improving the ef ficiency of the licensing process.
Commonwealth strongly opposes Petitioner's request that informal public hearings be held in all licensing actions, and that "interesteo persons" be allowed to request formal hearings without being requi' red to intervene.
Both requests are contrary to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the "Act") ano inconsistent with the need for efficiency in the licensing process, which the Commission has recently reaffirmed.
45 Fed. Reg. 20260 (March 27, 1980).
Section 189a o f the Act already requires public nearings prior to the issuance of' construction permits.
It also provices the opportunity for a public hearing in respect of all other licensing i
actions, although it permits the Commission to issue requested l
amendments to construction permits or operating licenses upon a l
determination by r.ne Commission that the amendments involve no significant nazards considerations.
Thus, the Act already provices l
a calance bebeen permitting public participation and the need for efficiency in the licensing process.
The Commission is not free to recalculate this calance.
l Moreover, tne scheme aovanced by P:titioner woulo ce unworkaole.
Petitioner is ooviously unfamiliar witn the tremencaus volume of license amendments which are routinely processed by the j
NRC.
To holc informal nearings on.each one would be impracticable.
Tne sheer volume of such licensing actions would ensure a virtually continuous informal nearing in respect of each nuclear station.
And witnout some thresnold finding akin to the "significant nazarcs consideration" finding presently mancatec oy the Act, the truly important licensing actions would be obscured in cloucs of trivia, l
ratner tnan revealed to public scrutiny as Petitioner doubtless i
e intanos.
w-~um eu..?kl.l9.. nh
~
Westinghouse Water Reactor June 16, 1980 e:1355 Piti:: rg'IPaT Aan:31523]
Electric Corporation Divisions COCKET NUMBER 4
PRM lO mi=
PETITION RULE U.S. Nuclea(4f(1:K 24io7D s
O' r.egulatorv Commission OOOk'UD g
o'ffice of the Secretarv of the Commission USNRC Washington, D.C.
2055'S g.
JUN I 91980 >
lI ATTENTION:
Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretuy Oceketing & servie, Stanch Gentlemen:.
p b
dd c3 l $?
Subject:
Filing of Petition for Rulemaking, Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency.
By notice published in the Federal Register dated April 17, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a petition for rulemaking on behalf of the Citi= ens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency which would require an informal.
public hearing in every inscance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license.
The Westinghouse Electric Corporation has reviewed the aforementioned petiticn and recommends that the NRC deny the request for change.
A " hearing", such as that proposed by the petitioner, should be nec assary only in those cases where a licensing or regulatory action requires an environmental assessment.
For fuel fabrication facilities, chese casas are to include (Re: Federal Recister/Vol. 45, No. 43/Mondayc March 3, 1920/Pgs. 13739-13766):
A license for possession and use of special nuclear material for processing, fuel fabricatica, scrap recovery, or conver-Sl. 20 (b) (6) sien of uranium hexafluoride, pursuant to Part 70 of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; Issuance of an amendment (to such a license) that would result
- 51. ?l (b) (5) in:
A significant expansion of a site; A rignificant change in the types of effluents; A significant increase in the amounts of effluents; A significant increase in occupational exposures; or, A significant increase in the potential for accidental releases.
s
\\
A s
g gs i
\\@
UM"Mid by Card..&
0,&(
e l
1
o-c If such proposed action is detemnined to have substantial impact, an Environmental Impact Statement is to be written.
The scoping process "any person who requests an opportunity to participate in the)] scoping for an Environmental Incact Statement then becins (31. 28 (a) (5 process" is given opportunity to air specific concerns.
Therefore, it would appear that the petitioner's concerns will be adequately addressed by current regulatory plans; and, that to grant this petition would be contrary to the "three principal aims" of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (Re: Federal Register /Vol.
43, No. 230/ Wednesday, November 29,1978/Part VI) to:
Reduce paperwork, Reduce delavs, and Produce better decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking.
We hope that you will give these comments serious consideration.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please write me at the above address or telephone me on (412) 373-4650.
i Very truly yours,
- / fy onald P. DiPiazza, Manager Licensing Administration RPD/rk W
~
e Secretary of the Commission June 16, 1980 ANPP-15662 - JMA/JPS Page 2 Paragraph 4 of the petition is intended to provide for interested persons to request a formal hearing without being required to inter-vene and make formal showings. The problem is that the requestor need only specify the aspect of the subject matter as to which a hearing is sought and need not identify any specific issues (unlike a person filing a petition to intervene, who must file a list of contentions (see'Section 2.714(b)).
If a request for formal hearing is filed and granted, and it is solely because of such request that a formal hearing is scheduled, there would be no issues to be determined.
If there are no issues to be determined, there is no point in holding-a hearing.
Paragraph 5 of the petition is intended to permit all interested persons to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding. The.
proposed revision to Section 2.715 would permit a person not a party to 4
the proceeding to " participate in the proceedings within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the prescribed officer." The participation provided for in the proposed revision in some respects resembles the limited participation described in Section 2.714(e) and (f). The chief difference is that a person participating under the 4
proposed revision to Section 2.715 need not identify his interest-in the proceeding, or how such interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.
(See 10 CFR Section 2.714(2).)
i Permitting the type of participation requested by petitioner would be contrary to all traditional notions of standing. Tne proposed revision is, nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the Commission's established requirements in'Section 2.714.
For the foregoing reasons, Arizona Public Service Company respectfully l
urges the Commission to deny the subject petition.
i (1) Although Paragraph 2 of the petition-states that an infomal hearing l
should be required in all instances, it appears that under the proposed I
revision, an informal hearing is required only (1) if no request for formal hearing is filed within the time prescribed in the notice
- l published pursuant to Section 2.105(a) (see proposed Section 2.105(d)),
or (2) if a request for a formal hearing is filed but denied (see proposedSection2.105(f)). Presumably, if no notice'is required under Section 2.105(a) and no request for "ormal hearing is filed, no informal hearing is necessary.
1 i
Secretary of the Comission June 16 1980
-l ANPP-15o,62 - JMA/JPS Page 3 j
(2)
For instance, the differences between a formal and informal hearing are not defined.
Furthermore, the requirements applicable to an infonnal hearing are confusing. Although the petition proposes to make Section 2.750 applicable solely to formal hearings, an informal hearing is to be reported "by the best practicable means" (see proposed Section 2.105(e), thus raising the question of when would a transcript not be the best practicable means.
Proposed Section 2.105(a) provides in part that a notice of pro-posed action will be published "with respect to an application for:....(4) Any other license or amendment...as to which a hearing is requested by 5 or more persons." If such a request is made, following which a notice is published, is it necessary for 5 persons to file yet another request for hearing, assuming the applicant does not, pursuant to proposed Section 2.105(c) (3)?
Very trul; yours.
Cu.A q
E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President, Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director EEVBJr/JPS/av o
~
Y
& SS AhSSYS PHOCNIX, A AlZON A 85036 P. O. 8 0 x 216 6 6 June 16 1980 ANPP-15852-JMA/JPS COCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE __ eau - 2,10 (46 FR 2.6b0 5
s Of Secretary of the Comission ro g t
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission usyp*
O Washington, D.C. 20555 S-l:
gN 2 01980 >
i Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch ef5ce cf the s%
g Oucke:in & se;,ie,-
Re:
Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Em 9
Area Planning Agency; Filing of Petition W
Sdv j
for Rulemaking 45 Federal Register 26071 c0 l W (April 17, 1980)
Dear Sir:
On March 13, 1980, the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission. The petition requests the amendment of 10 CFR Part 2 relative to the conduct of licensing proceedings. Arizona Public Service Company, as Project Manager and one of 5 Participants in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, opposes the petition for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
Paragraph 3 of the petition provides for the holding of an informal hearing in situations involving the issuance, amendment, r(ippification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license. 81 There areseveralproceduraluncpb'aintiesassociatedwiththeproposed revision to Section 2.105.
The principal problem, however, lies with the potential for waste of time and effort.
For instance, assume that under proposed Section 2.105(a) (4), the Comission determines that the ooportunity for a public hearing should be afforded. Assume further that neitner the applican' nor anyone else files a request for formal hearing under proposed Section 2.105(c) and (d). Under such circumstances, an informal hearing would be required.
The requirement for an informal hearing would apply even though the proposed action may be a license amendment which involves no significant safety issue.
An informal public hearing would have to be arranged, a notice of such hearing would have to be published, and the licensee, Comission staff and perhaps vendors and consultants would have to pre-pare for the informal hearing. However, if no one desired a hearing, it is unlikely that anyone from the public would appear to ask questions or make comments.
Thus, holding an informal hearing under such circum-stances would benefit no one, and would only result in a waste of time
.~
and effort.
)
uknweepd by card..N.
D.
Y.
~
r
Secretary of the Commission June 13, 1980 Page 2
Petitioners' second proposal, that interested persons ~be allowed to request a formal hearing without being required to intervene, would be inconsistent with Section 274(1) of the Act.
That provision expressly grants interested states the privilege to participate but not intervene in formal licensing proceedings.
Granting similar privileges to any interested persons would be inappropriate.
Moreover, formal proceedings currently cost licensees ano the federal government tens and even hundreds of thousanos of dollars.
It is outrageously inequitable for Petitioners to demand that such costs be incurred by others while
" interested persons" stand by without being required to intervene or contribute anything to the process.
Finally, it should be recognized that increasing the frequency of informal or formal hearings, as contemplated by Petitioner, would result in a significant drain on licensee and Staff resources.
Yet, according to the recent report of the NRC's Special Inqui.ry Group:
Practically all those who are familiar with the licensing process, including most Licensing Board members who responded to a questionnaire sent out by the Special Inquiry Group, agree that the formal hearing process does little to enhance the quality of reactor safety.
(Volume I, page 140)
Commonwealth understands that for reasons of public policy, public hearings are a necessary part of the process of nuclear regulation.
Nevertheless, in allocating the limited resources of Staff and licensees, first priority has to be given to making plants i
as safe as possible.
Frequent public hearings of trivial matters i
would divert management attention and engineering resources away from plant operations ano design reviews which are.the estaolisneo mecnanisms for maintaining plant safety.
i Commonwaalth believes that the remaining portion of the petition, dealing with scheduling matters, is unnecessary in view of current NRC practice.
Hearings are generally held in the vicinity l
I of the affected facilities, and Licensing Boards, in Commonwealth's exper,ience, nave usually gone out of their way in holding additional sessions or evening sessions to accommodate public participation.
Sincerely, O I,$,,.4/
D. L.
Peoples i
Director of Nuclear Licensing j
l
\\
4518A
made at all, should be made by the Congress.
The Commisson should decline to amend its regulations in the absence of Congressional action.
The petition for rulemaking also requests that 10 C.F.R. 52.751 be amended.to establish specific require-ments for " informal proceedings, including meetings between Commission staff and representatives of the licensee and/or representatives of consultants and/or vendors for the licensee.
Petitioner requests that all such meetings shall be public, shall be preceded by formal notice, and shall be held in the vicinity of the plant site upon request by any person.
We submit that the proposed amendments concerning " informal proceedings" are both unnecessary and burdensome.
With respect to the requirement that meetings convened by the Commission's Staff be open to the public, such-meetings are already publicly conducted, except in cases where restricted or proprietary data is being discussed.
In addition, the Commission's Staff normally notifies intervenors of any significant meetings.
Upon occasion, other interested persons, who have manifested a desire to receive notice, are also notified.
Finally, the Commission's Staff has in recent years adopted a policy of voluntarily conducting public meetings in the vicinity of the plant site where a significant license amendment or enforcement action is pending.
Thus, current Commission practice adequately addresses the need for public information and public participation, and no formal amendment to the Commission's regulations is necessary.
It'is also true that the adoption of formal requirements for meetings with the Commission's Staff would be burdensome.
It is often necessary and desirable for the Staff to convene an informal meeting on short notice to discuss questions that have arisen during the course of Staff review.
Formal public notice of a meeting under those circumstances is not practicable.
The content of such informal review meetings is usually quite technical.
Public participation in such a technical meeting will neither aid the Staff in its review nor enhance public understanding of the application.
l Technical conferences'are usually held in the Commission's offices for the convenience of the Staff.
Occasionally, technical conferences may be held at the location of a vendor, in order to permit the Staff to review documents and records maintained by the vendor.
l
. _., _ -. ~,
. ~......
.',.9 Samuel J. Chilk June 16, 1980 Page Eight For the reasons stated above, this portion of-the proposed petition should also be denied.
VI.
Conclusion Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the current regulations are inadequate for implementing the type of public participation Congress wished to have in NRC pro-ceedings. The proposed modifications to the regulations are unneeded, detrimental to the efficiency and ef fectiveness of the licensing process, and, in some instances, contrary to the requirements of law.
For all the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that this petition for rulemaking be denied.
Respectfully submitted, cw9 Jos ph B. Knotts, Jr.
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 857-9800 i
Counsel for Washington Public l
Power Supply System l
l l
- ~...
l Carolina Power & l.lght Company DOCKET NUMBER ne 16, 1980 PETITION RULE PRM -2.-lO e
6' (45 FR. 2GOT m
~
Secretary of the Co=missiod p
United States Nuclear Regulatory Coc=ission COOlGTED Q
USNRC j
Washington, D. C.
20555 t
JUN 2 31980 > fi Attention: Docketing and Service Branch ll Cfficeof the3een8rt PETITION FOR RULEMAKING g/./
9 DOCKET NO. PRM-2-10 y
.ptg6Y/
O
Dear Sir:
On April 17, 1980, the Commission published a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Citizens Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency of the Ocaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa area (45FR26071). The petition requests that 10CFR2 be amended to " require an informal public hearing in every instance of issuance, amend =ent, modification, suspension, or revocation of. facility operating license."
It is our opinion that such a rule change is not only unnecessary, but could prove counter-productive to the public health and safety. A=ple opportinity is already provided in the existing regulations for interven-tion by the public in significant license modifications, and the Commission has established procedures for noticing license amend =ents in the Federal Recister. The establishment of a minimum criteria on inter-vention should be designed to encourage only those with legit 1= ate interest in the proceedings to participate. To permit groups which do not even meet the current m4n4 n1 requirements for intervenors to parti-cipate in hearings would dilute the efficacy of the process and may, in l
fact, reduce the technical fiber of the entire licensing process to l
administrative ga=esmanship.
It should be noted that such "infor=al hearings" would still require "for=al" action by the NRC Staff, utilities, vendors, architect /
engineers, court recorders, etc.
Thus, substantial human resources and time would be required for each license modification. The diversion of this =anpower from safety-related issues at a time when the industry and NRC are striving to maxi =1:e our efforts in these safety areas would represent an unwarranted diversion from issues bearing.on the public I
health and safet'y and could prove highly deleterious to the public -
health and safety. A final consideration in this regard relates to license amendments issued on an expedited basis.
Esen with the best of intentions on the part of everyone involved, the infor=al hearings and their associated preparations, noticing, etc., required by this petition AcknowW by ceftf..
k 1/,
411 Fayetteville Street
- P. O. Box 1551
- Raleign, N. C. 27602 l
l
~
would make it impossible for any license technical specification change to be obtained on an expedited or emergency basis. Circumstances occasionally necessitate that utilities request emergency changes to their technical specifications. At the present time, these requests can be processed in a very short period of time if the needed change is a straightforward one, and in the best interest of the public health and safety. If the petition was adopted and the rule changed, this type of review would become essentially impossible and this could add substan-tially to the costs of power production or result in unnecessary power outages for utility customers without providing any increase in public health and safety.
We hope the preceding comments will be taken into consideration in the Co= mission's deliberations on this petition.
Yours very truly,
/
E. E. Utley
- }
Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering & Construction l
l l
l DLB/je (154-084) j i
l l
s i
Telephone 617 366-90l!
3 rwx 760-390 0739 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY s.1.1.1 WYC 80-19 20 Turnpike Road Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
,Ya.aL M mass
_ laq m.
~
n No)a[PRM.2-lob j
ooge p
(45FR.2/oo10 m e sseo
- 4
~
Secretary of the Commission g3 c{ QeMT gng & ServiC8 g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
tranch Washington, DC 20555 V
Attention: Docketing & Service Branch M\\
Subject:
Comments on Petition for Rulemaking fecm the Citizens Advisory Board of the Omaha, Nebraska-Council Bluffs, Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (45FR26071-4/17/80)
Dear Sir:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject petition fcr rulemaking. Yankee Atomic owns and operates a nuclear power generating plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. The Yankee Nuclear i
Services Division also provides engineering services for other nuclear power plants in the northeast including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook 1 and~2.
Yankee Atomic recommends that the petition be denied. We believe the impacts significantly outweigh the value of this proposal.
l The proposed amendment requiring formal public hearings in every instance of issuance, amendment, modification, suspension or revocation of a facility operating license would place an i==ense burden on licensees and the NRC staff without measureably contributing to improved health and safety of the public.
The time spent at public hearings would divert technical resources frem important engineering and operational concerns thereby actually negatively impacting safety. Also, the significance of public hearings would be greatly diminished since the majority of time would be spent on procedural and minor technical matters. The importance and benefits of public hearings are related to major public policy decisions such as regional planning and the like.
l
\\
The proposal to permit interested persons to request a formal hearing
\\
without being required to intervene approaches absurdity.
An individual requesting a hearing should have a good reason and should be'able to vigorously pursue their contentions before a for=al hearings board. They should not be allowed to request a hearing when their major objective is merely interruption of public energy supplies or media exposure. The 1
(
opportunities for individual intervention provided in the present system already are more than ample and in fact have often i=pacted plant operation f
.~.. _ _
Juno 19,1980 U. S. Nu21 ear R gulctory Commiccicn a
Attcnticn Dock 0 ting & Servica Branch P g3 2 with absolutely no benefits accruing to the public, the licensee, or the NRC whatsoever. Examples of this are legion, but the extended 6 month shutdown imposed on Boston Edison'.s Pilgrim Unit 1 in 1974 is clearly an example of abuse of the system and resulting in needless loss to the public. These proposed amendments would exacerbate the problem of irresponsible intervention even further.
If a Public Information Program is the objective of the proposal we believe such a program could be beneficial to everyone but it should be considered outside the context of a licensing action for the reasons discussed above.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact us.
Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY
. H. Moody Eenior Licensing Engineer JHM/kaf 1
l l
I l
l
~'
s
'C O
At:mia lnd xtri:l Forum,Inc.
7101 Wisconsin Avenue g
4 Washington, D.C.'2oo14 Telephone: (301) 654-9260 DOCKETED TWX 71082496o2 ATOMIC FoR DC
,S t)$N1:tc j
b JUN 91980 >
July 1, 1980
'j g
-g DCCKET NUMBER n
N p
FETITION RULE PRM 7 go m
Secretary of the Commission (45 ' FR 2 4671)
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Att:
Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 45 FR 26071
Dear Sir:
The Atomic Industrial Forum's Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety has reviewed the subject proposed amendments requested in the petition for rulemaking filed on behalf of the Citizens Advisory Board of the Omaha, Nebraska - Council Bluffs $is petition be denied. Iowa Metropolitan Area Planning Agency and reques that t A requirement to conduct an informal public hearing in every instance of issuance, amendment or modification of a Facility Operating License would pose a significant deterrent to public health and safety by/or operation and by diverting importantinhibiting expeditious facility design and technical resources to engage in unnecessary public hearing activity.
F.xisting rules require that the NRC, prior to acting thereon, cause to be published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed action with respect to an application for:
- 1) a Facility Operatir License, or 2) an amendment to a Facility Operating Licenss ehich involves a significant ha ards consideration (in cases where the NRC determines that there is the Commission no significant hazards consideration involved, ice in the may issue the amendment and then publish a not Federal Register).
Such existing rules are entirely adequate to ensure that members of the public are given full opportunity to request public hearings concerning Facility Operating Licenses.
In addition, permitting "all interested persons" to participate in a limited manner in all aspects of a proceeding would in i
effect allow any person to participate in any proceeding at any time and would, in our judgment, substantially degrade the
-t effectiveness of the licensing process and thus significantly W
\\ ;-
reduce the high levels of protecton to the public health and safety that the present licensing process provides.
Furthermore, existing rules governing formal intervention and limited appearances are more than sufficient to ensure that persons with genuine interests are given full opportunity to participate in a proceeding.
Ackncvded:ed by cud.~r7M4As _fc.
[,
59eratory of the Commission (2)
July 1, 1980 Finally, the proposed amendments require that "all informal proceedings, including meetings between the Comeission staff and representatives of the licensee and/or representatives of consultants and/or vendors of the' licensee" be:
' 1) "upon the request of an9 interested party.
held at a site and time reasonably calculated to make some (sic) reasonably accessable to the majority of persons potentially affected by the action proposed" and
- 2) noticed "sufficiently and in advance.
. as to allow time for such a request to be made, and such proceedings to be rescheduled if required".
Such requirements would result in significant delays in accomplishing necessary interactions between th'e NRC staff and the licensee and would thus maka the licensing process even more cumbersome and costly than it already is, while providing no meaningful benefits to the health and safety of the public.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments and we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on the above comments.
I Sincerely.
l D. C. Gibbs, Chairman Committee on Reactor Licensing and Safety DCG/jph i
h c-
.-.-,n
---,e-
. -