ML20147C428

Pub Meeting in Washington DC on 781207:discussion of Policy Statement on Alternative Site Eval Under NEPA for Nuc Generating Stations.Pp 1-34

ML20147C428
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/07/1978
From:	Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812180269
Download: ML20147C428 (35)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. iAg 3p,k /

c. f h N

I[ NUCLE AR RE G UL ATO R Y CO MMIS SIO N-t I l 1 l IN THE MATTER OF: PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF POLICY STA*EMENT Od ALTERNATIVE SITE EVALUATION UNDER NEPA FOR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS Place - Washington, D. C. l l oet.. Thu.:sday, 7 cecember 1978 p g., 1 - 34 l i ..n n.:

w.: ::

i l ACZ. : w ER.C., EI?OR"' IRS, riC. Ctf.ekiReconers 7812180263 .:,,u y,cn :_,i,,33n..., cy 7 we3ningen. :.c. :ccc1 N AT:CNWIC E cOV! RACE. 0 A!!.Y

a 1 s - a _CR'Lo 30 i DISCl. AIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Cor: mission held on 7 December 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, ii. W., Wasni ncton, D. C. The meeting was open to public attandance and observaticn. Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. . The transcript is intended solely for genersi informa'tfenal, ur;oses. c As provided by 10 C: R 9.103, it is not part of the fermal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressiens of cpinien in this transcript do not necessarily. reflect final determinaticns or beliefs. l:o pleading or other cacer may be filed wi:n t1e Cc=ission in any proceeding as the result of er addressed to any statemant er argument contained nerein, except as the Cc=ission may authcrize. e 9 ~ b W i t

8 l 2 .L c t UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA y ~ CR1630 j. HOFFMAN:mp-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION mask' '7' 3 PUBLIC MEETING 5 ) l DISCUSSION OF POLICY STATEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE v i 4' 2 5, SITE EVALUATION UNDER NEPA FOR NUCLEAR i i i i 2' '6' GENERATING STATIONS t I, 7i e Room 1130 gl 1717 H Street, N.W. i Washington, D. C. j 9I i Thursday, 7 December 1973 l 4 10 I l-11 ; .The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m. 1. 1 1 [ 12 l BEFORE: I j 13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman .j. 14 f VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner RICEARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner i. 13 I PETER A. SRADFORD, Commissioner 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 - 4 l }g, PRESENT : 1 ? I l 19 l L. GOSSICK 7 l R. MINOGUE 20 j R. SMITH i M. ERNST i H. SHAPAR

7) l K. PEDERSEN 22 '

N. KELLEY 4 I G.. SEGE .23i 24 ; whrci boorwes.' inc. 25 l ~ l ) ,1

3 l .CR 1630 HOFFMAN 4 t-3 7te 1 - - _ _C _E E _D _I N .G. S P RO 1 l 2 l: (11:15 a.m.) t 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. If the other bedies who e 4l are holding their meetings in the rocm will come and sit down 4 5! wi th us. i 6 ! The Commission turns now to a briefing by the staf f i i 7j on and a discussion of a policy statement on alternative site 4 i 8: cvaluations under the National Environmental Policy Act fo r I 1 9 nuclear power plants. I will comment, *before launching the 10 staff on the brie fing, that this is a subject which ir more than i 11 l a little complex. And I must confess to feeling very uncertain 12 that I understand even the principa.1 points. t 13 Now, we've run a shade late this corning. Commis-i 14 ; sioner Kennedy will have to leave before 12:00. The Commission IS itself cannot run much past noon because we gather again at 16, 1:00, t 17 In view of the nature of this subject, I will warn ycu i 18 all at the start that I regard this morning's meeting as the i 19, first of what I think will have to be a series of discussion 20 i meetings en this subj ect, because I'm confident it's going to 21 ; take more than one for me to get into a positicn where I feel 22 ; I can sufficiently command the issues and can vote in good 23 ] consciance myself on whe ther to go with the preposed pelicy 24 staterent or it plus some other things or alter it in what way, OJfC8fCi R900ft9ft. Inc., 25 ' and so on. 1 1 1 i l

4 mte 2 a } j So I will not be asking the Commission for votes this j i 2, mo rni ng, nor do I expect that it will end in one of those situa-: h tions where we seem well-resolved and have only to lock for 3 i another month at various words on the paper. I will give fair 4 i S warning that I think the scheduling of further discussion on the matter -- 6! i i 7' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think you have concluded that. I I it takes a month for us to reach final conclusions once we have g resolved the issue. 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That was sort of a gratuitous 10 11 3 insult that I slipped in there. 12 (Laughte r. ) i i 13 l, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And I confess to i t. I don't t y apologize, but I do confess to it. 13 Okay, Lee. I see the staff all assembled. Please i 16 go ahead with your presentation. MR. GCSSICK: Th ank you, Mr. Ch airman. j7 18 ! We have two speakers this norning. Ray Smith will start off with a bit of an overview of where we are in this 19 i i 20 l very complex matter, as you've described it; and Mel Ernst 21; will then go into the paper that 's been sent up here by NRR on

v.. ' thes e particular issues.

Rav? 3 4 .;4 MR. SMITH: Okay. The first slide -- er.cmi a.oonm, inc., e5 (S lide. )

i 5 i mte-3 i 1 MR. SMITH: -- shows you what we're going to tell you. l 2 I w"11 be brief. I will give a little history, some summary of -3 what we have done to the policy statement since you saw it last, l l 4 discuss -- I was intending to ' discuss a recommendation on j l Si issuance. Perhaps I can forego that in view of the opening 6! statement. i 71 The substantive, this wil. only take a very few 3, minutes. The substantive part of this discussion will be by i I 4 9 Mel Ernst. We 'd like very much to get some feedback from the 10 Commission on the substantive issues that are presented in the 11 ! second paper which you have on the information item. 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would you tell me the relation ' 13 ship between those two papers? In a sense, is the policy state-14 ; ment a distillation of a resolution of the issues? 15 MR. SMITH: The papers are primarily separated because 16 the policy s tatement gives broad philosphical, if you will, on 17 - how we do alternate siting; the other paper mainly goes in:0 la implementation of these broad -- 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But they were tcgether? 20 MR. SMITH: They were closely intertwined, and that's i 21 ll why in this discussicn I don't intend to discuss the substantive 1 o 22 : issues. Mel will discuss the substantive issues, both on the ] 23 policy issue and en the information, because they are se c10selv -- \\ 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Your position is that there are e.J=.<w m.oorrm. inc. 25 no, at least fundamental or major incensistencies between the 1 a a

t 4 mte 4 1 two? They track? 2 l MR. SMITH: Yes, they track, and they talk about the i 3> same issues. 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right. i S MR. SMITH: Okay. The next slide, i I 6l (Slide.) I, 7l MR. SMITH: Let me go very briefly through some i I 8: history. The policy statement was requested by the Commission l 9I in January of ' 77 as one of a number of topics that they wanted 10, policy statements on. We gave you the draft o f that s tatement, I 11 ! then, 'in Augus t. We got some feedback from the Commission, and i i 12 j after some rewriting and a dissenting view, we gave you another i 13 version in March of this year. In May OGC suggested that a i 14, decision on that paper then be deferred. 15 And on the next slide i 16 i (Slide.) 17 ! MR. SMITH: -- in August, then, the Ccmmission 18 i requested that we take it back up again, review it in light of i 19 l the Seabrook decision. Other things happened, where we issued I 20 ! this preliminary statement on general policy, which looked at t i 21 l alternate sites as one of ten issues that we wanted comments 22 l on for rulemaking. 23 ' In October there was an Appeals Scard decision on i 24 the Sterling pro ject, which has scme bearing on this because naruero new,sm. tne., 25 the wording of the statement is somewhat dif ferent from che

mte '5 7 i earlier versions. 1l-2f Now, in December -- whit you have before you now is 1 2' thes e two capers. The first paper, as I said, analyzes the 4, decisions, revises the policy statements to clarify the intent. i 5 We didn't, in the policy, statement, go into the details which 6 the Commission requested us to, mainly because we thought they 7 went beyond dhe decisions at Seabrook and they had to be dis-i I 8; cussed in more detail and submitted to rulemaking. Therefore, i I 9 the information paper is now separate and does go into those i 10 ' details. 1 t I 11 : We ' d like very much today -- we wanted two things from 1 12 1 you: a recommendation on issuance, which we've already got; 13 but now we'd like very much to have some feedback.on these other la j issues from the Commission, to help focus the s taff 's further 15 discussion o f the issues. 16 i On the next viewgraph -- i I 17, ( S li de. ) 18, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is it premature to ask -- let's l 19 ! see, vour recommendation was to issue the colicy statement? 20 i MR. SMITH: Yes. t l 21 ! CEAIEMAN HENDRIE: But not 163(b), a policy statement t 22, for comment. 23 MR. SMITH: We've changed that recommerlation. The 24 earlier papers were to issue the statement, period. We are new eJectr:I Atoorters. Inc. 25 saying we should go out for comments rather than issuance, i 1

I 8 mte 6 i. 1 par.tly because we already have this paper out that ide ntifies alternative sites as one of ten issues for comment. And if we 2l 3 go out now, we are abrogating the comment pericd on that. 4l Also -- i 5j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You weren't proposing to put l ! 163(b) 6 i MR. EMITH: We were not. But af ter the review of the 7 3, OPE memo that w<a saw this morning and some discussion in the l 9 - sta f f, we think it is a good idea that we would put the policy n), statement out referencing the NUREG report, which is basically ll i the information paper, saying these are the issues that the 12 staff has in mind, this is where the staff stands on these l 13 l issues. I la j So any commenters on t.ne policy statement would have 15 that document for guidance. t. !6 ' MR. ERMST: No commitment of positiens, but just an i 17 indication o f opening dialogue, various options, and pros and 18 cons in judcments. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It 's goed to understand the sort 19 ; 20 ; of amended proposition before the house. Now, eventually one 1 21 ! would want to close on that issue. Okay. Onward. MR. SMITH: Okay. Let me j us t s ummarize fo r you ve ry ~ 23 : 24 quickly what we did to the policy statement since you saw it.

.>=:,,ci neoonen. ine.

25 We reviewed it in view of these decisiens that are listed here i

'mte 7N: j i t on'this viewgraph. We've made some: changes to clarify it in ) i view.of this. We also, in the _ paper itself, will be flagging 2 ! some issues that the Commission should focus on, as well as the 3 s tatements in the ~ information paper. 4 ) You should all realize that we view the policy state-5l ment as a broad f ramework and that the problems we ' re having, 6 7 the complexities ' come up in the implementation of that policy. I The substantive issues, then, we believe are primarily involved 8 i 9; in the implenentation rather than in the statement of the i i 10

policy, i

i 11 l On the next slide -- i 12 { (Slide. ) MR. SMITH: Well, the next tso slides give the pros 33 14 ! and cons'for the recommendation to issue. Basically, the staff i 15 feels that it's useful to issue it at this time, to make one ! step forward in our thinking, provide guidance to the s taf f 16 i 17 f and notify everybody where our thinking is at this point, in la j preparation for a more detailed rulemaking later. This would i i 19 l be _ a little place to hang your hat, even though it doesn 't go 1 I 20 1 as far as most people would like. It is an interim step. ] I I 21] On the next slide -- l (Slide.)

3.,.

1 - e MR. SMITH: -- the problems with that, primarily with - 33 l 1 34 ELD. They have scme trepidation about confusion in the public's j a a m m s neoan m,ree. j 25 mind because of issuing this. It doesn't have.ha :orce o f law. i i

.~ .=. - -. lo-Late 8 1 They worry that we would be1using it as such. They think 2 i rulemaking is a better way to go. I l 3 We-agree with that, but on the other hand, we' d like i l to have this. interim s tatement out during the rulemaking process. 4+ e COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Aren't they really saying I 6 that it doesn't do anything? l l l 7' MR. SMITH: Yes, they-are. g! COMMISSIONER KENNCDY: And they're saying it's not l 9 supposed to do anything, but in fact it. would do something. 4 I l 10 { MR. SMITH: It would help guide the. staff in its. 11 licensing decisions in the interim. 12 l COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: Do you mean the staf f? 13 MR. SEAPAR: Our view is the staf f would certainly 14 follow it or try to follow it. After all, the Commission issued 15 ; it, no' matter what you call it, even though there's a disclaimer i 16 ! there ~ that it isn 't intended to prescribe a rule of conduct. I 17 ' The staff will gravitate toward any policy position articulated 18 by the Commission, i l 19 ) The basic theory is that this'has been studied for a 20 year and a half. We have awfully good guidance from the i 7; i Commission at Seabrook. The options are laid out pro and con, i 22 ; and now is the time, in my opinion,- to bite the rulemaking I 23 bullet and articulate policy with the force of law. ~ 24 _ COMMISSIONER AHEARNE : .What kinc of a schedule wculd tem Fecerce Reporte,s. lnc. 25 the rulemaking be cn,.and then realistically? i 1 I

. ~ - - 'll g9 - ' I i i MR. SMITH: Optimistically, we would expect an ) 2l ef fective rule next December, a' year from now. I i 3' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And realistically? MR.. SMITH: Probably two years. 4 MR. SHAPAR: I don 't a gree with that. I think the 5 i Commission could vastly compress that schedule by asking the j 6, i I i staff ' to comment soon. That's my own judgment. I 7 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What would you say it could be g i 9l done in? MR. SEAPAR: I would say it could be done in six jo 11 months. 12 ' MR. SMITH: There are too many differing opinions in i the staff to iron that out. I really believe that you're smoking 13 i 34 l some thing strange in your' pipe if you think you can get this i 15 thing out. 16 (Laughter.) MR. SHAPAR: Just because there are disagreements 17 i 18 l among the staff, I don' t think it's reason to surface these l pp j disagreements and decide them. ? COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I certainly hope that the 20 21]! staff's view isn't that they don't bring their position up to '2 l the Commission until all disagreements are ironed out on the i

• i i

i s ta f f '. I think there 's a f airly widespread opinien here -- ~ - 23 24 ( Laugh ter.-)

os=ws m.oemn. ine.

25 COMMISSIONER AHEARME - I was' r. ore interested in nhe 1 I i I

.. ~ ? te 10~ 12 l } I message -- 2l MR. SMITH: As you'll see in Mel's presentation, these-t t 3 are very complex issues. They're very hard to get hold of. t i COMMISSIONER AEEARNE: Let us try. 4; 3 'I 3! (Laughter.) 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's very dif ficult to do. 71 (Laughter.) i g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I comment, John, that there was a I i 9l time, in fact, when the staf f tried very hard not to have things 1 1 10 : come to the Commission -- in fact, the AEC practice, you know, I I 11 before the general managers presented their thing to the 12 i Commission, if it had any dissenting staff views which were 13 discernible from the table, you know, people went into deep i 14 l shock if it appeared that might be the case. r 15 ; We 've tried to steer toward a more reascnable propcsi-16 ! tion, which is that not 'every initial dif fering staf f office 'l 17: view needs to come forward, that there cught to be a certain 18 l amount of scrubbing of those views in araument, and the EDO 19 l tries to get that down, try to get down to sort of the essentials j 20 lof the mat.er; but then, good, then those things could ccme i 21 ! fo rward. l 22 ; I think there are a number of papers. Te're aware of ) 4 i 23 1 the different views. So there is -- a f air answer is that we i 24 would like to have some reasonable degree of scrubbing, but that ,swees moonm: sne. l 25, the Commission, I don 't. think, can stand every shade of opinion. i I l r

~.=13 mtd. ll1 { 1 But certainly, as you get through to essential differences, I 2 then those things indeed ought to come forward. to the Commission. t 3' MR. SMITH: I think our December schedule would assume i i 4-that. I' think that's about the best we can do, really. 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would urge, on my part, l 6! that they send things forward rather than scrubbing too much. i 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. And that also helps to move a things on up. On the other hand -- well, I'm not_sure. You 9l know, Commissioners have a great facility for discovering i 1 10 'lobjections and dif ferent views en ' the subject anyway. So I'm l 11 not sure that it really adds all that materially to the number 12 of items of discussion here at this table. 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All the more reason not to wait l 14 l until they're ironed out. I 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : As I say. 16, MR. PEDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, while we ' re on the i 17 ~ slide of CONS, I' d just like to add one thinc. The proposal :o i 1 18 i go out for public comment before we get the sta ement out really 19 ; had two goals in mind: One, that you're giving additional I 20 i guidance to the staff. Howard has spoken to that. The other I l 1 21 l would be the benefits of the comment. And ! guess my view on I ~ 22 l reading the statement was that I'm not sure it would be clear to l 23 ! the public what they were commenting on or what the issues were. 24 l The guts of the issues are in that information paper. i c. 7 m,c a.oon m.inc. l 25 Now, I think linking the information paper with the -{ ) w wer g r

i .e 12 14 i I statement putting them both out is useful. And I'm glad the 2lstaffagrees. I guess my own j udgment is, though, that we 3 might be in a little bit better position shortly, when these i 4j issues have been worked on a little nore and more sharply I 5, defined, to get even better and more meaningful public comment. 6 I just don' t think we think we can go racing out too frequently. 7! We ought to give the public the clearest understanding of the 8 options and the choices possible, and that was the basis of the i 9! recommendation that I had made in terms of accelerating it and 10 lgetting a more finished information paper out with the policy 11 ! statement. i 12 MR. SMITH: I guess our view is there's not too much 13 more the staf f can do without scme guidance frca either the la Commission or the public. And we'd like to get int that mode 15 at this time, i 16 ' MR. P ECERS EN : I would assume the added guidance of l 1 17 the Comnission. 13 ; MR. ERNST: There is a point, I think, and that is the i t 19 i SECY-485 paper on rulemaking will not ba in the Federal Register 20 ' til the 14th of December, because we ' re awaiting publication 21 of the NUREG. t 22 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What's the ccmcent period there? il 23 ' MR. ERNST: 60 days. So it would be my view that -- 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You didn 't want to do this in any es,cro neconm. ine., 25 event until after that had run out. t I f

mte 13 15 i i 1 MR. EPSST: I'm not sure that a complementary time 2 l frame would not be useful, if, for example, we went out with a 3l policy statement and a NUPEG which had the information paper 4! available to the public to enhance their thought process in the l, 5l same kind of time frame as SECY-485, and advertised that this i 61 is further thinking on the staf f's part in this area. To facili-i i e-3 7l tate comments on the 485 might not be a bad way to go. i l 8i 9 10 l 11 1 12 li l l 13 j 14 l 15 i 16 i 17! I 18 5 19 ' l 20 i i f 21 i 1 22 ' I 23 1 t c..;,ome a.corari. inc. ' 25. i I

LCR 1630 'DHijwbL 16 l- .#4 MRi SMITH: 'You'd get better comments on 45.if-you 1 2 I. 'had dais out concurrently. 3' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That would seem to be true i 4; Jif you had the issues paper out. f 1 1 l 5; MR. SMITH: Right. i 6 i MR. ERNST: That's another option, to put the 1 information paper out as a sort of further guidance on 483. 7l l 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Need it go out as a Commission i l 9 policy statement for which public comment is being asked? In 10 fact, it's been also published, it would seem to me, as a j 11 NUREG staff document on alternative site review matters -- 1 12 ; Part A being: Staff saying, "Now that we 've been thinking 13 about it, it seems to us that this is the sort of policy 4 la[ statement which the Commission might eventually consider, and t-15 ' we'd be interested in comments on it." 16 ! Part 3 of the NUREG is : To hear a discussi-n of 17 some of the substantive issues within the staff, including a 13 number which we think the Commission ought to pay attention 3 19 to and on which we'd be glad to have public comment. But it 2 l 20. seems to me, from the standpoint of putting the material in I 21, 163A and 3 out, and saying: Hey, there. People are interested

l in this subject.

Let us know what you think. n But it need not necessarily go as a proposed 24 'Cemmission policy statement; but could in fact be totally a .s e.c.r.i a.oon m,inc. 25 ' . staff document. You know, the eventual goal of the thing could l i \\ r W ,r i-...-

4.-2 jwb 17 i I i r be made quite clear in the introductory remarks. 1l 1 2 l, I make the comment only because it seems to me that 3 Commission input and agreement that it constitutes a policy 4! statement which the Commission is willing to expose as its ^ 5 own product, even for public comment, seems to me likely to 6 require, as I say, several meetings and discussion and circula-7 tion of papers and head scratching. 3 I can see the process at the Commission level 9 stretching, in view of the pending holidays, two months down i 10, the line. 11 On the other hand, as a staff statement of current 12 l thoughts and directions on alternative site review matters 13 l published with a view to informing people where the staff i 14 i currently stands and is thinking about, it seems to me perhaps I 15 publishable, as fast as you can write the introductory words 16 and run the printing machines. 17 And I'm not sure what the Commissioners feelings d la about such a course might be -- 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, I guess first I would 20 5 pref er to give them a chance to at least cover scme of the 21 issues part of the paper. Then I'd have to rethink that policy, i 22 fj rather than going out J.n any guise at this stage with scme-

l 23 thing called a " policy document."

~ 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I promised in the "eginning I 4 eJectres meorms, Inc. ; I 25 i wouldn't ask you to vote, so I indeed wen't ask,ou to vote I

4-3 swb 18 I i. i jj even on that matter. 1 3! COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I understood Howard had

• e been saying that this would not provide more specific guidance 3

than the Seabrook decision, or significantly -- 3 \\ MR. SHAPAR: The policy statement might be. 5; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Therefore, what is the point 6 i of, going forward with it? 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRII: What about the 163 3 dicussions? 8 MR. SHAPAR: That flushes out the issues and gives 9 us the pros and cons. It's useful in getting people to focus 10 i jj l cn the issues and decide which way they want to go. i I guess my own feeling is that, in terms of the 12 i l \\ 13 l average difficult policy decision, there's probably been more ] generated on this, more thought given to it, and I'm for ja accelerating the process and ccming to grips with decisions on j, these issues, and going out with rule making. 16 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So your aim would be: How mus j7 more work on this thing, 163 A and B, are needed before they re l jg i ready to constitute a basis for a rule making. . l j9 I'm asking for comments. 20 MR. SHAPAR: Of course the staff was asking you for 31 your input on some of those substantive decisions. CHAIRMAN HENDRII: But of course the Commission has g to indicate some directions before the staff can go forward. 3 w, cuss a.oomn. ine. l o c 'l MR. SHAPAR: It doesn't have to be that way. One n 4 'ls

4-4 3wb 19 s option is that you tell the staf f to come up with recommenda-tions as to how they would go on these issues. And if there 2j are dissenting views on it, that's fine, too. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you want to go forward 3 i 5 with the rule making? MR. SHAPAR: It could go either way, 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And then move into a rule i7j a! making? I MR. SHAPAR: Yes. Go out and get public participa-9 i tion on the proposed rules. 10 I jj l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: How rapidly could you go i 12 j forward on that? MR. SHAPAR: That's where we differ. I say we 13 ja ; could do it in six months. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: C0mpleting it? Or starting

3 16 l 1 07 II MR. SHAPAR

A proposed rule before the Commission

7 in six months; but that depends on whether or not jg

- ]' MR. SMITH: I'll agree with you on that. j9 l I was thinking, " effective rule." 20 MR. ERNST: We're talking about an effective rule ,1, in Dec ember. ,3,1 MR. SMITH: I think we could meet it, f we really s break our necks. l 3 I m 5.cen, a.mnen. inc. ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's the normal state of

c 1

i l l

~ c ~ ^~ - ~ - 4 5 jwb-20 l + 'l activity in the staff, isn't it? 2l MR. SMITH: There is a limited number of items on 3l which you can do that, however. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: _It seems like a reasonable 5'i approach. i i 6-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It seems so, to me. 7' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me avoid developing a l 8 decision, however, on' that procedural aspect and ask -- I 9l MR. SMITH: I'm finished. Let's go with Mel. I 10 CHAIRHAN HENDRIE: I was about to go forward and II cite.some issues. Let's hear sort of the introduction to that 12 l subject. I3 I think I ought to reschedule this subject at a Id ! f airly early time before it decays frem our memories, and then la ' we 'll try to deal with the procedural questions, and the rule-i 16 making policy statements. t 17 Let the staff publish what they have, and comment, I8 or whatever. Okay? I l9 I Mel? 20 : MR. ERNST: A little bit of the Commission's 21 pleasure in this, i 22 l (Slide.) I .23 What I had originally planned on doing was lightly 24 covering the issues in the information paper which you have ' :.4.cero a. con m.inc. l ee before you, and then concentrate more on the questions raised i 1. I i

q;pgg7-- - 7. i 21 ].. I I in the policy paper regarding.whether, or how to' issue a [ 2 policy statement.- That was the original intent. i 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I've got a notion you'pe not 'r 4 going to get much more than the first summary part of the S i - questions, by. the time we' get a few questions along the ;say. 6 And I think you'll have to develop, and both review i i 7' th a.t, and pick up the rest of the argument at a subsequent f i 8 meeting, because I am going 'to bang the gavel promptly at high 9' noon. l lo ! You've sort of got 20. minutes. i II ! MR. ERNST: Would the Commission find it more I 12 > profitable to just have an overview of what's in the information i 13 'pa per, and not focus on the possible changes, or questions-14 raised with regard to the policy statement? i 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would think so, at this stage. 16 I Because I think the other business ccmes appropriately when.we i i 17 ' have the time at the next meeting. Hopefully,' we can discuss 18 l some of-the procedural aspects that it will be necessary to I9 cover those subjects at that time. t 1 20 l MR. ERNST: All right, i 21 l As an opening statement, I think it's clear that 22 consideration _of alternatives is the linchpin of NEPA. The 23 l particular questions before the Commission right now regarding 24 l alternative sites, however, really is about 100 percent of ' OJoce?al Aecorters, Inc. 25 NRC's siting policy. I F ..,w. ,;n,. -+-+-.4-

. ~. - - 4-7 jwb 22 1I j a It's -- the ' detailed investigations of impacts [ j l n rmally reflect on changes in' operating procedures, changes in i, 2; design at the site, or a compensation of' impacts, rather than 3 1 ] ,j change in the site. i i So basically from a siting standpoint, we look a 5 the alternatives as abcut 100 percent of the siting policy, as 6 4 far as NRC is concerned. So it is extremely important. 7, I s I We have a number of' questions before us and issues, g and it is a complex paper -- ;omewhat a complex paper -- because 9; i the subject is complex. l jo. 11 l In my view, however, there are a couple of critical, i verriding questions that I think we 'should keep in mind as we 12 i go through. 33 i i One is basically the role of the NRC in this process, ja f and this involves questions as to how-independent should our j3 16 l reviews be? Or how much should we rely on a so-called "QA a check" of applicant information. 37 What ' kind of scope and depth should the staff 18 : i employ in the investigation of the alternative site question? j9, t Second -- again in my view -- the overriding criti-0;. 4 I cal question that permeates the entire process is the use of g i. standards, and perhaps threshold criteria in the implementation g l 23 ; ur rev ew process. 24 ' And this kind of question raises itself in a number 3 ' o.s.c.,.: neoo,ren, inc. of areas. The definition of the " region of interest" can 4. i k l

6 ~ A 23 i i -j you uso, threshold kinds of criteria, or importance criteria, i 2, or. some ' kinds of standards to reasonably define the area; I ~ 3 the type of screening methodology; the_ implementation of the i 4l obviously superior criterion. When is an impact sufficient I enough to alter the standard? The definition of the NRC interest in the site 6 7 selection process, as opposed to the comparative evaluation of sites af ter the candidates are identified. g, i The question of reevaluation of the alternative 9 i to site question at a later tbne; a-d how much information is 1 11 j enough? l 12 l All these, I think, tie very closely to the kinds 13 of threshold criteria that ' the Commission might feel appropriate i ) 14 in making decisions in this area. 15 ; There's no real problem with technical evaluation 16 of information. The real problem comes in the thresholds of i I 17 i concern and how we make decisions in the area. 19 l The first slide -- 1 19 l (Slide.) I ~ 20) -- was the original scope of the presentation, i 4 I 21 which will be slightly amended now. What I will cover this \\ 22 ; morning,.very briefly, is the : cur 1ssues addressed in Mr. Chilk's j 4 i

3 memo of August 15, where the Commission asked for.a start of 24 '

discussion on certain issues critical to the alternative-s1:e wsmmi n. con.,. ine., l 25 ' question. i y

4-9 jwb 24 i 1 Also, I will give a brief overview of three other 2 issues that were identified by the staf f. The mechanism for i 3, this identification, I might state, was that representatives 4l of standards NRR and EOD form what you might call a i S! task force, and very productively, in my view, generated the 1 6! information paper. t 7l So in all, there are seven issues that the staff 1 8' feels are fundamental to the particular question at hand. l 9; I was also going to cover the questions identified i 10 ' in the policy paper which bear on whether or how to issue the i 11 l policy statement, but I will let that pass this morning. There 12 may be a more opportune time to address that. I 13 l Next slide, please. i 14 } (Slide.) i 15 The four issues that were addressed by the Cctmis-i 16 i sion in the August memorandum are on this particular slide. And 17 I'll briefly talk your way through the four. I w'ill not be talking about the alternatives that 13 19 the staff developed, or the detailed considerations nhat are 20 ; important to the consideration of alternatives -- pros and 21 cons, things of that nature. 22, I will try to set the s tage, hcwever, as to the a 11 23 ] subissues involved in each one of these, and a general staff 24 )lconcensus, where there was a concensus, as to staff feelings in as,emi a oonm. inc. ; 25,I the area. d

25 ;- l 3 l i l In the. "obviously superior" area, issues appeared to, 1 4 be the question' asked by the Commission: When is a site t 2 I "obviously superior"? ) i 4j As' I mentioned before, I think this is very closely l tied to threshold criteria for decision making. Also in the 3 i j staff't. view, the question of use of the term "obviously 3 4 ] 7: inferior. quality" I think is important to this particular question. 3 I 9l The rationale behind the generation of this term 10 l1is basically what is likely to turn you off about a site, is l some identified poor characteristic of that site. And if you ij i 12 l find no poor qualities on a site, you're certainly less likely I l to find an alternate that's "obviously superior." j3 14 l So that was sort of the philosophical train of 1 i g3 l thought tha t the staff has followed in this area. gl Another subissue is a question.of : When should the II

7 ;

NRC consider alternate sites, as opposed to those developed by the applicant in his site-selection process? 18 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I must ask you something. 19 t I How frequently does this process result in a site being picked .o t 21 ; ther than the one that the applicant selected? MR. ERNST: I think -- if anybody can refresh my 3, 4. i J memory, I'd appreciate it, in the room. I don': think it's 23 happened mere than a couple of times. 3 ca.Fecnt Reconen. Inc, ' CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sun that's pretty clearly a 73

.-. = 261 I i imatter of-population density, isn't it? l 2 But let's 'say, apart.from population density -- I I MR. GOSSICK: There was a Puerto Rican reactor, 3 s l wasn't there? - 4 I 1 i - 5. ' MR. SHAPAR:- Seismically. 6l MR. ERNST: Definitely. f ' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So in fact, environmental 7 1' 1 3; conditions, other than population, have never played a role in 4 i l 9' shif ting the site? i i to ' MR. ERNST: I think that's a fair statement. l 11 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which makes it sound like i-l 12 l someone's turning another crank. i i 13 [ MR. ERNST: I think there's an observation to be ,i i l 14] made here. We may be skipping ahead, but let me'make it. j l 15, It appeared to the staff, after a lot of experience i-in this area, that if you have a reasonably well-founded 16 il l 17] screening process, you're likely to come up with a number of

g i sites that are, one might say, " functionally or environmentally-19 rather. equivalent."

20 l And it's rather difficult to find substantial I 21 differences. And that assumes that a reasonable site-selection 22  : process has been employed. j There are many selection processes the staff has 23, i 24 found that may well yield good products. So it's difficult to w.carei awa,ms, inc. 23. Esay-that this.is the stile crank you should always turn in a 1 ..e-- w

4-12.jwb 27 site-solection process. l, i .t So that may well be the reason why the end product -- eiI; after close e"aluation by the staff --has very seldom, if ever, 3 found any substantial problems. 3 N w there have been areas where we've found problems, 5i and there's been litigation required. Useful litigation is 6 certainly an alternative that should not be dismissed. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But somehow the comparison 8 i 9l with other sites doesn't seem to play much of a role in this 10. pr cess. 11 l I mean, either there's no problem and the applicant is always picking the right site; or we don' t do much with the 12 I 13 l problem. I MR. SEAPAR: But it's a litigated issue, in some ja cases. Part of the reason for that litigation is because the j3 ground rules are not clear, 16 j 7 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: New clearly we want to clarify the gound rules, jg i 19 l MR. ERNST: There's two elements of this thing, I o I think. One is a technical elc.nent. What I stated before is ,0 4 l 1; basically a technical conclusion. If you've done a reasonably 4 i 4 gl responsible selection precess, it's very difficult technically to perceive major differences between sites. 3 i, To say the submission should be at the other site -- p, we,c neoo,nn, inc, CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There 's the point of the a.S i i

4-13 jwb, 1 28 i i f "obviously superior" s.andard. ) MR. ERNST: There's the procedural or legal matter, 2; though, of proving that in a credible way. I think this leads 3 4l the staf f down towards the procedural approach in 1 coking very l carefully at the process and really worrying about how one can 5 6; demonstrate that the process which has been found -- tha+ 1 7l somewhere in the wcodwork there 's not an "obviously superior" sito. 81 That's really the crux of the problem. This proving, 9 l reasonably, that even though you can ' t find perhaps an 10, 11 obviously superior cite amongst the identified candidates, that 12 ; somewhere there's not one that was not overlooked. i (Com:sissioner Kennedy leaves the hearing room at i 13 1 ja f 11:50 a.m.) MR. ERNST: As a matter of fact, we are in a jg 16 statistical process. We don't look at every square mile, and i ? neither does the applicant. We are in a screening mcde, which 17 is basically a statistical kind of process. I jg 19 Statistically you can't say, with certainty, that there's not an "obviously superior" site that had been over-20 looked. So there's sort of a procedural problem. ,1 CCMMISSICF;R GILINSKY: We do expend a great deal of effort on a process that doesn't seem to have any' visible l ,.3 l 4 3 results, other then that it satisfies certain legal requirements. 34,o..i acconen, inc.

3 -

MR. ERNST: Staff is frustrated by the same question. .I J ..i .I I __J

3-14.jwb. l 29 i ~ i I And that is: What is a useful regulatory effort in this area 3 that will reasonably find fault with an improper site selec-e1 tion process, but not require extensive effort that in m' 3 cases doesn't result in changing it. 4{I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Does the staff feel that the 5 T. l end #4 current process allows sites to be selected that should not be? 6 MR. ERNST: The current process? I do not believe l beg #5 7 SO' a. 4 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So that you're saying that 9j staff 's concern that you're just describing is more because 10 11. the process is cumbersome, and perhaps requires too much review, I I or too much procedure, without cny significant benefit? 12 ! MR. ERNST: That's certainly a consideration. The 13 staff feels -- at least technically -- sort of compelled, y; I j3 : because of the process, to demonstrate superiority to the 1 proposed site, which is difficult o do. 16 Many times we get into a trap like that. In g, la ; " functionally equivalent" or " environmentally equivalent" sites, 19 you're almost led to try and de.monstrate why the proposed site, if it's rational to do so, is better. j 0. 1 i But typically speaking, maybe in 5 or 6 total 21 ; 1 candidates, including the proposed site -- 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But the standard is: You g 24 wouldn'u pick another one unless it were. wee.,. a e=nen. inc. MR. ERNST: But I'm just scying that past practice ,3 ; s 1 a 1 \\ i i s

5,-13 jwb f 30 i 1 has sort of led -- and it's frustrating. I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What kind of a sense do 2 l1 2 you have of a difference in having an alternative process out 4 there has made in the applicant's own internal procedures? j 5 MR. ERNST: I think I have not been that close with i 6! the specific casework. Maybe an observation can be made by i i 7 people who have. 8! My personal perception is that NEPA has made a i 9; difference; that we are seeing better quality sites than we i 10 l were seeing perhaps 10 years ago. ] i I 11 { I think there has been an impact. 12 ; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would think that there 13 would be an impact. i 14 ! My question is: Is it in proportion to the amount 15 of effort expended? In other words, we go to great lengths 16, to examine sites and, you know, in great detail, and yet the 17 result seems to be that the original site is chosen every time 18, except for one or two cases where population density affected 19 tne choice. 20 MR. ERNST: Some of these areas -- if I'm saying 1 21 ! things that people in the room disagree with, I think they 22 should speak up, because I'm a little bit further afield. i 23 3 But I do feel that NEPA has been good for the site-selection t 24 process, and we are seeing better sites. ca.eue newnm. inc. 25 I also think, personally, that you can't fall back

.,5,16fjwb p 31 e i too far in our regulatory oversight functions. ~ otherwise, the j gains.that have been made in past years will be lost. q 2 t 3 i So I think 'there is a respcnsible job that can be i ' performed by.a regulatory agency in this area. Just exactly j what tha t job is, and how.to implement it, is a good question. 5, I think that's the one before us. 6 j What is the ratio of staff and contractor'-- l 7 O.MMISSIONER ' GILINSKY : Just.how ought we to go 8! about our business in examining these choices. 9, MR. ERNST: That's right. I think we ' re at an 10 11 opportune time to do this. We've had seven years ' worth of experience under NEPA. There is a lot to look at. 12, A lot of experiences have been had, and I think it's' 13 time to take stcck and see what we've done, and see what's use-y ful or.not useful. 15, il MR. SEAPAR: To answer your question, alternative 16 site reviews are a rather small fraction of the total NEPA 37, I review estimates performed by the staff. 4 33 MR. ERNST: Another good. point. We estinate probably

9 I

2 percent or so of the pages, for example, if Ehat's a measure, j 20 j; of the ' environmental statement; ' and the bulk of it -- COMMISSICNER GILINSKY: -- gces on that particular 3 l' thread. a3,: .i MR..SHAPAR: As a detailed lcok at that, 3 aJamt neoo,wn. ine. COMMISSICNER GILINSKY: As the particular, yes. 3 i I 1 I l ..e i 'l l J, 1

5-17 jwb, 32 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Many times in the discussion j i of the technical -- 2'; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What fraction of this sort of a f litigation does it represent, out of the total NEPA load? 3 I. ^

• 5"'

i 5' j percent. That's what I would guess. i 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On the technical side, we are 'r i 7t l 1 1 i 8:' of ten told that the staff does extensive work with the appli-1 1 cant, and resolves a number of issues during the development of 9 the plant design, prior to filing for the license or construc-10 jj tion permit. One of the points that's being made is that many 12 i times the applicant's original proposal is modified in this j3 j3 process. Does that occur also in the siting? Or does the t 1.,- applicant come in with: Here is the site we want to place, and there is not that type of mcdification of proposed site? 16 1 MR. ERNST: Do we understand the question talking j7 about before docketing? Or are you talking about before jg issuance of the construction program? j9 i COMMISSIONER AREARNE: Before docketing. 20 l MR. ERNST: Before decketing, there is little if any .1j i interplay. The interplay is more on an informational base ,a. coming in, and here 's the site. Staff is taking scme inicia-3, tives in this area, too, once we find cut abcut a pending 3 m%ero neoorms. inc. standpcint, application that we feel, fren a ecmmunity-impact 73 i

5-18 jwb 33' i i this might be a good time to get out and start talking to the community'to let them know what we do, how we do it, what the 2 i 4 3[ kinds'of impacts that you might expect from the community 4j standpoint. But that's about cil. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But you don' t then have the 3 i 6; s tuation where the staff may have convinced the applicant to use an alternate site, prior to that actually becoming any j 7 type of formal procedure? g MR. ERNST: We do have discussions with the appli-9 l cant, usually before he comes down. And there are come cases 3 10 where.a site may have some untoward characteristics, and the i 11 applicant may well consider an informal staff viewpoint in this 12 area before filing.

3 MR. SEApAR

I note that that's one of the elements 9 15 ' in the siting bill. Of course, it's open to advanced planning-It's been sort of an ethic that's been pushed for years, 16 b with no discernable results in terms of that process being )7 18 ! EU8h*d th#0"9h* CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me that, although we j9 ; l 20 l have not -- we've only broached the first of several issues, summarized, the clock nevertheless advances to a point where 3; I 22 j discussion seems to me to have reached a stage where if i: I '3 ; goes on and en we'll have a severely shortaned chance to 24 ; tend to some things and eat scme lunch. eesm,. m.oone,s. inc. I think we ough: to adjeurn at this point, and take 25 k l i

5-l&jwb t 34 I this conversation up on a rescheduled basis, and get it on the 3 agenda fairly soon. 2 n. l ., l (Whereupon, at 12:00 o' clock, the meeting was ,I adjourned.) i 1 5, I 6 1 7' l 1 8l l l 9' 10 ' l 11 1 i 12 l i 13 l l 14 l ) 15 16 ! 'l 17 IS 19 20 21 22 ;l I l 24 is.esr.: neconers, inc. 25, 'l I .i i-4 I l}}