ML20006B767
| ML20006B767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/06/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kostmayer P HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005H003 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, KOSTMAYE-900106, NUDOCS 9002050333 | |
| Download: ML20006B767 (22) | |
Text
,
g..
I 1
c l>
's j
v.
1
. QUESTION 3:
Please provide-the Subcomittee with a legislative and regulatory history of the " reasonable assurance"' standard.
Please include:
-(a) any opinion of the General Counsel of the NRC which l
i; deals with the interpretation of this standard.
l (b) any reference in the statute or the legislative I
history which supports.the view that this standard could be lower for a plant with a site which is relatively difficult to evacuate than for a plant which is relatively easy to evacuate.
ANSWER.
_(NOTE: - the answer to this question assumes that the question refers ~to
-i the phrase " reasonable assurance" as it was used in the 1980 NRC -
Authorization Act with respect to emergency planning.)
l a
'The legislative history of the 1980 Authorization Act is silent as to the level of risk that Congress contemplated when it enacted the " reasonable
- assurance" standard. Rather, Congress provided a standard that had some flexibility with the intent-that the Commission would apply its expertise
~in developing implementing regulations. This statutory scheme was 9002050333 900117 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC 1
+-
e,
9'
'e Question 3a43b.-(Continued) discussed by the' United States Court of Appeals in Comonwealth of' l
~
. Massachusetts v. United States, 856 F.2d 378 (1988), the case in which the-
,l Connission's 1987 emergency planning rule was upheld against, among other things, a claim that the Comission was acting contrary to Congressional intent. - Rejecting the argument that no deference was due to the Connission's judgment,.the court said:
i i
They [ petitioners] argue that, for example, offsite emergency planning -- as opposed to technical utters relating to plant
.I construction and design -- is outside the NRC's area of expertise.
We do not ag me. The substantive area in which an agency is deemed
_to be expert is determined by statute;-here, under the relevant-L congressional enactments, ~see supra, the NRC is specifically.
authorized and directed to Te'temine whether emergency plans adequately protect the public.
[ citation omitted.] We also reject petitioners' argument that the NRC is owed no deference because the issue in this case is a " pure question of statutory construction."
The issue is not a pure question of statutory construction.
= Petitioners dUot ask us " purely" to construe a statute; they ask p
us to hold that, given the statutes, the agency has acted '
unreasonably. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the issue were purely one of statutory construction, petitioners still have not directed us to any enactment in which Congress has clearly indicated a view of emergency planning that is l
i at variance with the NRC rule or that forecloses the NRC's adoption l
of the approach here adopted. Without such an indication of I
contrary congressional intent, we should nomally defer to the E
agency's reasonable construction of the statute it administers. 856 F.2d 378, 382.
p l
l The question thus becomes what the Commission intended at the time it L
adopted the 1980 emergency planning regulations. A discussion of the Connission's 1980 rulemaking, including numerous references to the relevant Congressional enactments, comittee reports, and NRC Federal l
l Register notices, appears in the Comission's 1987 emergency planning l
~e
1 A*
1 3
.c i
Question 3a43b.(Continued) '
j1 final rule, published in the Federal Register at 52 Fed. Reg. 42078
]
l (November 3 1987). A copy of that notice appears as Attachment A, and a copy of the court opinion sustaining that rulemaking appears as
]
Attachment B..
Attachments:
l A.
10 CFR Part 50, " Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off-Site Emergency Planning for_ Nuclear Power Plants at the Operating' License Review Stage Where States and/or Local Governments Decline to Participate in Off-Site Emergency Planning," 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (Nov. 3, 1987).
i B.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States, 856 F.2d 378 (1988).
[
l i
'A c...
(c) a list of all decisions made by the Comission or its lower boards in which the " reasonable assurance" standard was applied.
ANSWER.
Since the Commission's emergency planning rules are expressed in terms'of
- " reasonable assurance," every decision on emergency planning explicitly or implicitly involves a finding of whether " reasonable assurance" has been demonstrated with respect to the specific matters in controversy.
Attachment C is a representative sample of those decisions of the Commission and its subordinate Boards issued since 1980 in which emergency planning issues have been decided.
Attachment:
C.
List of Decisions on Emergency Planning.
I
4:
v LIST OF' DECISIONS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING In'the Matter of-Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear. Generating Station, Unita 2 and 3),. Docket Nos. 50-361-OL, 50-362-OL (Emergency Planning Issues);
LBP-82-39, Nuclear' Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,.15 NRC 1163 (May 14, 1982)
In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-275-OL, 50-323-OL (Emergency Planning); LBP-82-70, 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing I
Board, 16 NRC 756 (August 31, 1982)
In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company' (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-352-OL, 50-353-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning Issues); LBP-85-14, 1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing l
l Board, 21 NRC 1219-(May 2, 1985)
In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)-CLI-86-13, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 24 NRC 22 (July 24,l1986)
In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise); ALAB-900, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, 28 NRC 275 (September 20, 1988)
In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear-Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise); ALAB-903, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, 28 NRC 499 (November 10, 1988)
In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
. II!443-OL, 50-444-OL (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) (Offsite Emergency Planning); LBP-88-32, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 28 NRC 667 (December 30, 1988)
In the Matter of Public Service Company'of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos.
II-443-OL, 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning Issues)
ALAB-922, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, NRC (October 11, 1989)
ATTACHMENT "C" v -.-
e
- ~. - - -,.
.