ML20005H005
| ML20005H005 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1990 |
| From: | Kostmayer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005H003 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001240032 | |
| Download: ML20005H005 (4) | |
Text
--
~.-
i o
o=sseu nee stto.oness A
MORRIS K. UDALL ARIZONA. CHAIRMAN I
L.I e
.aa, smo c uso SYa[DIECTC
=.~/.='.,,""ta:= "=;t',:".rt '"'
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
- = = J.,"""
=;m"O%
- au'=
- ',r,T;
- . "'."
- = '#" "" **'
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
.'#Eo".'i ;
2.",;.' 2 ll"7 M' int,/o"JE',"c'."!$'.
u.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
)
",2 " l,"O,'.T'c0",."J"'
=,',;! 0T";'.
WA$HINGTON, OC 20515 L,,,,, Ly,,
osmanAL cousi ut,O" = ". = ',"t &.
f"X,""JJ'*'..
- caa= ^*aw '
,,m. gg.=,
- oo c n
c==* =aowr 1" f, 1 1 %"I - c u
- t ',"!,b"'".*.sE".
g = e g cao
%"l'.="a' L""o:"*'
January 5, 1990 The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr Chairman (ORIGINAL RECEIVED 1/6 CORRECTION OF 1990)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Dear Chairman Carr:
s I have received your response to my letter dated December 12 1989.
In your reply, i
you failed to answer any of the questions with relevant material but not with a complete answer You appear to be under the impression that the Administrative Procedures Act and the Commission's own regulations prevent you from answering questions from the chairman of a subcommittee of Congress charged with overseeing the regulation of the domestic nuclear industry.
With few exceptions, I asked very broad, generic and threshold questions.
- Indeed, legislative and regulatory history of a statute.one question asked you any authority which prevents you from providing a full andI am unaware of complete answer to such questions.
such questions is extraordinary.
Your unwillingness to answer Rather than speculate-on.Why these questions were not answered properly, I am requesting, once again, that you provide accurate and complete answers to each numbered and lettered paragraph.
keep Congress and this committee fully apprised of activities warrant specific section of a statute,less than a complete answer, please cite a authority on which you rely, administrative procedure, or other.
statute, administrative procedure,and provide a discussion of how that basis for not answering the question.or other authority provides a This will assist me greatly in understanding the NRC's view of its obligation to be responsive to its oversight subcommittees.
9001240032 900117 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
.o,
1 6
4 i
Please provide these responses no later than Tuesday, January 15,
)
1990.
Under the circumstances, I must ask that you centact me i
perscnally, Chairman Carr, should there be any difficulty in providing accurate and complete answers to these requests.
look forward to your timely reply.
I Simt:erely,
~
Y1. )
A Be H. Kotstmayer /
Chairman Attachments:
Questions i
.i i
l l
e
t
...-m....
90 Reft L. UDALL320NA CPAo'.uN M Enl$ '.I, E INeEe O wecasacem.
""[afo$,0h
=r/ fray::"=r' =:::.::"at**
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
% = =c
{$Qf{*' {31, AND INSULAR AFFAIRS Tggy,.g,e l
- 'd!!J.?Mre iT/ tTat'f.".
u.a. 8ouse or mernestwtames
- 7.II.n*=rc,r* :;r!/t=#,
W^ssinoton. oc :es t cova.it
!?o't.i=r g gn,e ::T,:'Y,L
.e m i J'.a %
1*JG.c. u. re.ieum
==a ***
i4g.g cais' waso=n cet
.?#at=J,....
~.
- k";";T.?
t
'7,.T"'*..*,. 7,;;;'."'*"
EU.E' *'wCEu"""
E
/f90 January 5, The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr Chairmen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingten, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
I have received your response to my letter dated December 12, 1989.
with the partial excoption of Question 11In your reply, you failed to an with relevant material but not with a comp,lete answer.to which you responded i
You appear to be under the impression that the Administrative Procedures Act and the Commission's own regulations prevent you from answering questions from the chairman of a subcommittee of l
Congross chargod with overseeing the regulation of the domestic nuclear industry.
With few exceptions, I asked very broad, generic and threshold questions.
- Indeed, legislative and regulatory history of a statute.one question asked you mer I am unaware of any authority which prevents you from providing a full and complete answer to such questions.
such questions is extraordinary.
Your unwillingness to answer Rather than speculate on why these questions were not answered properly, I am requesting, once again, that you provide accurate and complete answers to each numbered and lettered paragraph.
Should you believe that considerations other than your duty to keep Congress and this committee fully apprised of your activities warrant less than a complete answer, please cite a specific section of a statute, authority on which you rely, administrative procedure, or other
- statute, and provide a discussion of how that basic for not answering the question. administrative procedure, or other a This will assist me greatly in understanding the NRC's view of its obligation to be responsive to its oversight subcommittees.
l I
a
--.~w,
Please provide those responses no later than Tuesday, January 15, 1990.
Under the circumstances, I must ask that you contact me personally, Chairman Carr, should there be any difficulty in providing accurate and complete answers to these requests.
look forward to your timely reply.
I
^
S
- arely,
! Dh star H.h. )tmayor/
tw Koe aiman c
Attachments
- Questions l
h i
e
90R2il K. UDAU. AR120No. CMAIAMAN I
nTit: ny**
mmL% -
n=m==u
?;e/cA".= =:::"' = ra'h:"-
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR "OIN '
(?p,' $'[~
$"$3a".,,.
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS y
Tigegrg '
rd;ai.*,.". F"#4, O."a',"#.*:.
v.s. Houss or asensstwunvas
- 'lL'f,',58l"l;;*gaa*
@g%"%
WASH NGTON. DC 2:115 e,twem couws ;
d Saa.a NwY?v !
e g.m..-
$;*.GSfE u en.w.
~
.5$*$b5n* * * " " * '
t December 12, 1989.
The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulitory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Cear chairman carr:
comprehensive inquiry into NRC licensing proceeding interpretations of law that appear fundamentally at odds with the steady erosion of safety standards enacted by c following the majer nuclear accident at Three Mile-Island in Pennsylvania, and by the extraordinary series of apparently e
contradictcry actions recently taken by the commission and its Licensing Board concerning the application for a full power operating 11consn at seabrook station in Now Hampshire.
Erosion of Dansonable Assurance Standard on March 28, 1979, civilian nuclear power program occurred at Three the U.S.
Island.
subsequently, this committee, pursuant to its industry, conducted a thorough investigation of this r and of the regulatory deficiencies made apparent by this accident.
On the basis of this investigation, a series of reforms were recommended by this committee and enacted into law in the 1980 Authorization for the Nuclear Regulatory commission.
These reforms included a requirement'that the NRC adopt the first time, mandatory rules with respect to emergenc,y for response to supersede the " voluntary guidelines" then in place.
These rules were to specify that no enaratina license could issue until the NRC had approved emergency response plans which provide " reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility."
congress made clear in the conference report its intention hhh$0T!)%
l
\\.
to it a state emergency response plan that provide assurance that the public health and safety will not be onable andangsred in the event of an emergency at such plant requirint protective action."
In response, a condition of receiving an operating licensethe NRC adopted response plan which provides adequate protective measuras. " reasonable assur,ance thatan esorgency emergency, can and will be taken" during an concerning the Commission's willingness to imple requirement consistent with Congressional intent.
For example, in 1986 the NRC issued an emergency planning decision in the case of Shoreham (CLI-86-13) which d that an emergoney evacuation plan did not have to attain minimum radiation dose savings or evacuations times, but on achieve reasonable and feasible dose reductions "in the circumstances at that facility."
And in 1987, the commission declared in a statement of 4
considerations for rule amendments that "every emergency pla is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits reference to the specific dose reductions which might be
, without plan.plished under the plan er to capabilities of any other accom Based on these declarations one might reasonably be pu about whether the NRC is attempting to circumscribe the ssied emergency evacuation requirements concern, however/ following a rece.
This puzzlement grows to Appeal Board giving weight to the argument that the fnt decision by th
" reasonable assurance" finding "should be on the obocus of a review of planning efforts and plan implamentation.jective than on the more subjective judgments about wheth..rather particular plan affords an ' adequate' level of protection or er a entails too great a degree of risk." (ALA8-922 at 23-24) twisting the intent of Congress to a point wherIt is a ose to longer be said that the public health and safety protecti e it can no afforded b Moreover, y one emergency plan is equivalant to another.
on extent that apparently plans might be approved as "r without judging the level of risk to which the populatio nable" the plant is exposed.
n near Fortunately, in ALAB-922.the Appeal Board was sufficiently cenfused about NRC interpretation of " reasonable-assurance" that it has certified that question to the Commis i that the Commizzion's answer to this question "is of pi s en, noting votal i
--- =
_o
importance te the emergency planning matters before us (the 4
Seabre:k case)
...and has important policy implications fer emergency planning in general."
1 Unfortunately, in the same decision, the Appeal Board ceneludet that emergency planning is a "second-tier a inferior to that of siting and design.
safety measure,
~3 That view clashes 1980 Authorization Act and' vith the commiss in 1979 that it proposed "to view emergency planning as i
equivalent to, rather than secondary to siting and design in l
public protection."
i As you know, the significance of this distinction is the difference between whether or not a plant should be issued an operating license.
Fairness of Licennine Process in ouestien 4
Island is a serious problem in its own right, but 4
develep=ents in the Seabrook case related to resolving this 4
confusion now threaten to everrun rational decisionmaking and to compromise the integrity of the Commission.
followed ALAB-922,I am referring to the extraordinary series of e i
including: 1) November 7, reversal by the Hampshire's Seabrook evacuation plan (AL 9, a Licensing Board decision to authorize granting the full' power operating license to sembrook despite the reversal of its New Hampshire plan decision just 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> earlier and des l
the fact that a question " pivotal" to the outcome of th e
t licensing proceeding was pending before the full commissio e
November 16, a decision by the full commission to ahort-n: 3) circuit the Appeal Board by asserting jurisdiction over the interveners Motion to Revoke and. initiating an "immediate effectiveness review" of the November 9 Licensing Board decision to authorize the license.
Without getting into the merits of this ongoing proceedin license while the NRC has pending before it g
standard for judging whether the evacuation plans for that e
plant are adequate.
i=ponsible to judge whether the standard has been met final action in a case 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> after it has bee ae an earlier decision which is the necessary predicate for: final en action.
When the Licensing Board can ignore the decisions of the Appeal Board, all semblance of fairness is lost and th pr: ess protections afforded affected parties become a sham e due
i e
cuestiens t
Given these cencarns, I would appreciate your prompt cooperation in answering the following questiens:
- 1. Does the NRC agree that it is legally required to de"-
operating licence to a new plant for which a st utility plan coeting the " reasonable assurance" ate, loc.
standart legislated in the 1980 NRC-Authorization bill has not been approved?
t 2.
Is it relevant to judging the adequacy of a proposed emergency evacuation plan that:
- a. the site of a plant makes it unusually difficult to evacuate?
If not, why not?
- b. a significant number of the people the plan is intended to protecc are not likely to avoid lethal radiation doses within the first 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> after a major accident?
why not?
If not, ti=en are higher than for similar plants in other locat c.
If not, why not?
3 3.
Please provide the subcommittee with a legis regulatory history of the " reasonable assuranca"lative and Please include standard.
deals with the. interpretation of this standard.a. any opinio b.
1 any reference in the statute or the legislative history which supports the view that this stand evacuato than for a plant which is relatively easy to evacuate?
a liac of all decisions made by the com c.
lower boards in which the " reasonable assurance" mission or its applied.-
standard was 4.
in response to the Three Mile Island accident,When it " recognizes that this proposal it declared that to view emergency planning public protection, departs from its prior regulat to emergency planning "
departed frca this view as expresced when the rule w If yes, why?
i J
I o,o.
o 5.
the " reasonable assuranceOoes the Cc==ission agree th j
i a standard for an applicant to show that it has done its best to plan for as efficient an j
evacuation as possible?
I 6.
step of interfering with the normal appeal rig Seabreck interveners by removing the Appeal Board from the l
appellate process after it reversed the Licensing Board i
i initiating an "immediate effectiveness" review?
i ceneral Counsel or any other similar opinio Ploese i
i Commission to guide its decision to review the consistei LBP-89-32 with ALAB-924 as a satter of "immediate of effectiveness" rather than on the merits.
(
1 7.
license to an applicant who'did not have an ng response plan at the time the license was issued?
g ncy i
explanation of hew nach decision is cons If yes HRc Authorization Act.
I I
s.
Board ever before been overruled by the eal Licensing Board?
of the circumstances and a justification that add and this is consistant with the Administrative Proce j
relevant statutes, and fundamental fairness to the parties i
ct 9.
issue an operatirg license while an appeal isHas y to the Appeal Boardi explanation and justification consistent with theIf yes, Administrative Frecedures Act, relevant statutts a d fundamental fairness to the parties.
n 10.
issue an cperating license while an issue de
" pivotal" to approving the application has been certifi d o
as the full commission and is still pending there?
e to
- explain, i
If yes, please 1
11.
deliberating entters conccrning the licensing o yes, please list the person affected and the nature of the j
rook?
If problem.
l I would apprecista receiving these responses at your earliest l
9 n
n
- a e>
r convenience, but in any case no later than December 20 you have any questien concerning this letter.Pleasa ca 1989.
Si y,
i i
h, b
/4
~
Peter H. Xostmayor chairman 4
l t
i t
I f
?
fi t
D o
t l
L i
.