ML20236G183
| ML20236G183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Atkins C, Downey T, Hochbrueckner, Mavroules N, Mrazek R HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236G187 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8711020450 | |
| Download: ML20236G183 (5) | |
Text
- _ _ _
e D CKET flUMBER.PR 50 UNITED STATES PROPOSED RULE (52 FR 6930) l o't, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
WASWNGTON, D. C. M55 (M[3C{NCy p 8
l
,1, USNRC October 27, 1987 k..... /'
g g*,
CHAfRMAN crw. ': '
The Honorable Chester G. Atkins OWR " -
United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear. Congressman Atkins:
We have received your letter of October 23, 1987, and wish first to correct Commissioner Bernthal's reference certain misapprehensions reflected in it.
to the Congressional letters received on the morning of the Comission's October 22 meeting was by no means " inadvertent," as your letter suggests.
Rather, it was plainly made with the understanding that those letters, like every other written comment on the rulemaking would be placed in the Pu Nor was the request for those Document Room and made part of the record.One NRC staff member, asked for the letters " refused by the NRC staff."
letters by a Congressional staff member at the conclusion of the meeting, was initially unaware that the letters constituted coments on the rulemaking, and replied that ordinarily Congressional letters are released only when He promised, however, to look into the Commission's reply is dispatched.The release of the documents at the clo Public Affairs office mooted the issue. Copies of the several letters from matter.
members of Congress and Governor Dukakis that were received just prior Thus it would be wholly inaccurate to Comission meeting are enclosed.suggest that the Comission so staff refused their release.
The Commission therefore stands by its letter of October 21, in which it declared that "the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue," and declined to accept the imp procedural burdens of a kind Congress has never required in informal Nothing that has happened in the intervening days sugge rulemaking.
need to reconsider that response.
the October 21 response to endeavor now to comply with your request for a N
lA chronology and sumary of communications regarding the emergency plan a
We believe rule between NRC and nuclear utilities or other Feder y) y w
g judicial litigation, is wholly inappropriate for informal rulemaking.
'g However, we again assure you that any final decision on the rule will be I
g
'I d based on the public rulemaking record.
Sincerely, d
8711020450 871027 N
PDR PR W,
ando W. Zec, Jr.
O
~~
T Nt
Enclosures:
Letters from Congressional members
- Q ci and Governor Dukakis
l;,
[pstay UNITED STATES "j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555
{
y October 27, 1987
%g+...*/'
\\
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Robert J. Mrazek United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Mrazek:
We have received your letter of October 23, 1987, and wish first to correct i
(
Commissioner Bernthal's reference certain misapprehensions reflected in it.
to the Congressional letters received on the morning of -the Comission's October 22 meeting was by no means " inadvertent," as your letter suggests.
Rather, it was plainly made with the understanding that those letters, like every other written comment on the-rulemaking would be placed in the Publ Nor was the request for those Document Room and made part of the record.
)
letters " refused by the NRC staff." One NRC staff member, asked for the letters by a Congressional staff member at the conclusion of the meeting, was initially unaware that the letters constituted comments on the rulemaking,
[
and replied that ordinarily Congressional letters are released only when the
{
He promised, however, to look into the i
Comission's reply is dispatched.The release of the documents at the clos Public Affairs office mooted the issue. Copies of the several letters from
]
matter.
members of Congress and Governor Dukakis that were received just prior' t Thus it would be wholly inaccurate to
]
Comission meeting are enclosed.
suggest that the Comission sought to conceal the letters, or that the NR 1
staff refused their release.
i The Comission therefore stands by its letter of October 21, in which it declared that "the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for addressing this issue," and declined to accept the impos procedural burdens of a kind Congress has never required in informal Nothing that has happened in the intervening days sugge rulemaking.
need to reconsider that response.
the October 21 response to endeavor now to comply with your request for a chronology and sumary of communications regarding the emergency plannin We believe rule between NRC and nuclear utilities or other Federal agencies.
that such a request, which resembles discovery between adversaries in judicial litigation, is wholly inappropriate for infonnal r based on the public rulemaking record.
Sincerely, lv.
Lando W. Zec Jr.
Enclosures:
Letters from Congressional members and Governor Dukakis
N,;
c
?
- derog
'I D
. UNITED STATES r.
l o
l' Eg
- NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION l]
g, WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
-[-
.g j
\\.
[
October 27, 1987
[
w J
r
- CHAIRMAN.
The Honorable Nicholas-Mavroules United States' House of Representatives Washing' ton, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Mavroules:
We have received your-. letter of October 23,'1987, and wish first to correct Commissioner Bernthal.'s ' reference certain misapprehensions reflected in it.
to the Congressional letters recefved on the' morning of the Com 4 sion's:
October 22 meeting was by no means " inadvertent," as your letterfsuggests.
d Rather, it was plainly made with the understanding that those letters,ilike w
every other written coment on the rulemaking would be placed in the Public Nor was the request for those Document Room'and made part of the record.One NRC staff member, asked for the
-letters " refused by the NRC staff."
letters by a Congressional staff member at the conclusion _of the meeting, was
~
. initially unaware that the letters constituted coments on the rulemaking, and. replied that' ordinarily Congressional letters are released only when the {
He promised, however, to look into the.
Comission's reply is dispatched.
q The release of.the docubents at the close of the meeting by the Public Affairs office mooted the' issue. Copies of the several letters from '
s matter.
1 members of Congress and Governor Dukakis that were received just prior to the 1
Thus it would be wholly inaccurate tor, Comission meeting are enclosed.
suggest that the Comission sought' to conceal the letters, or that' the;NRCj staff refused their release.
(.
4 The Commission therefore stands by its-letter of October 21, in which it?
4 1
declared that "the Comission could hardly have struc 1
j procedural burdens of a kind Congress has never required in informal Nothing that has happened in the intervening days sugges
.l rulemaking.
need to reconsider that response.
'l the' October 21 response to endeavor now to comply with your request for a.
chronology and sumary of communications regardin,
~
that such a request, which resembles discovery between adversaries in Judicial litigation, is wholly inappropriate for infomal ru i
based on the public rulemaking record.
1 Sincerely.
0v.
j lando W. Zec dr.
7
Enclosures:
1.etters from Congressional members and Governor Dukakis
)
i
M.
P, y}.
kA2800 UNITED ST AT,Es f
o.
t
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHING T O$, D, C, h0555 j'
- l October 27, 1987
?g* * * * * [
(,
CH AIRM AN '
.)
The. Honorable George J. Hochbrueckner United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
^
Dear Congressman Hochbrueckner:
We have received your/ letter of Octo er 23, 1987, and wish first to correct.
Commissioner Bernthal's reference certain misapprehensions reflected inif t.
to the Congressional. letters receiv'ed en the morning of the Commission's l
October 22 meeting was bymo means " inadvertent," as your letter suggests.
Rather, it was plainly made with the understanding that those letters, like every other written comment on the rulemaking would be placed in the Public j
Nor was the request for those Document Room and ma & part of the record.One NRC staff member, asked for the letters " refused by the NRC staff."
' letters by a. Congressional staff member at the conclusion of the meeting, was initially unaware that the letters constituted comments on the rulemaking, and replied that ordinarily Congressional letters are released only when the He promised, however, to look into the Commission's. reply is; dispatched.The release of the documents at the clo PublicAffairsofficehootedtheissue. Copies of the several letters from matter.
members of Congress and Governor Dukakis that were received just prior to th Comission. meeting are enclosed. Thus it would be wholly inaccurate to
.suggest that the, Commission sought to ennceal the letters, or that the NR staff refused their re! ease.
The Commission therefore stands by its letter of October 21, in which it declared that "the Commission could hardly have structured a more open process for. addressing this issue," and declined to accept the impositi procedural burdens of a kind Congress has never required in informal Nothing that has happened in the intervening days suggests rulemaking.
need to reconsider that response.
the October 21 response to endeavor now to comply with your request for a ch'ronology and sumary of communications regarding the emergency planning We believe rule between NRC and nuclear utilities or other Federal a judicial litigation, is wholly inappropriate for informal rul 1
f' ~
based on the public rulemaking record.
l
(
Sincerely, I
l-b.
Lando W. Zech r.
l f(
Letters from Congressional members j
Enclosures:
j L
and Governor Dukakis j
[ans'%
o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
{
j' W ASHINGToN, D. C. 20555 n
October 27, 1987 k*...*/
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Thomas J. Downey
-United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman Downey:
We have received your letter of October 23, 1987, and wish first to correct Commissioner Bernthal's reference certain misapprehensions reflected in it.to the Congressional l October 22 meeting was by no means " inadvertent," as your letter suggests.
Rather, it was plainly made with the understandin Nor was the request for those Document Room and made part of the record.One NRC staff member, asked for the letters " refused by the NRC staff."
letters by a Congressional staff member at the conclusion of the meeting, wa initially unaware that the letters constituted coments on the rulemaking, and replied that ordinar. ly Congressional letters are released only whe l
i He promised, however, to look into the lComission's reply is dispatched.The release of the docum mdtter.
Public Affairs office mooted the issue.
members of Congress and Governor Dukakis that were received just pr Thus it would be wholly inaccurate to Comission meeting are enclosed.suggest that the Commission staff refused their release.
The Commission therefore stands by its letter of October 21, in which it declared that "the Comission could hardly have str i
procedural burdens of a kind Congress has never required in inform Nothing that has happened in the intervening days sugges rulemaking.
l need to reconsider that response.
the October 21 response to endeavor now to com j
We believe rule between NRC and nuclear utilities or other Federal agencies.
that such a request, which resembles discovery between adversaries in judicial litigation, is wholly inappropriate for informaf based on the public rulemaking record.
I l
Sincerely, b Cv. p ( (.
I Lando W. Zech Jr.
i
Enclosures:
Letters from Congressional members l
and Governor Dukakis l
yy
.n
~
,h
..3 l[ -
')
'J
, J., ', 'j
, a
'; [' w
/
\\'
i fy y
y, j
.;lc Jj f
_]
'r !
j.
(
Q THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 1/'
j EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT i
80$ TON 028 33 k
STATC HCUSE k..
m.
q-
+3 4
1 I/i i
MICHAEL. 5. DUKAKiB -
October 20, 1987 I
oovtANo1 i
- ('
~ 4 Mr. Lando W. Zech, Chairman j'.,,
/i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
}
1 Washington, D.C. 21555
}i'
Dear Chatrran Zech,
A
.\\<
l This staff recommendation currerui1[dnier consideh$1onjy.the NRC
}
l s
4.
y Commissioners to approve the propased rule chanegregirding the licensi; n6 clear power plants in the absence 'of-state approved emergency responsa s
'/4ns, requires that I once again, in the strongest terms, voice my opp The Cnnmission should not subjugate the well
.,t.d this proposed rule change.
- being of Massachusetts citizens to the interests of a handful of util 4
9 i company owners.
.//
[
I testified be.~ ort one Commission to register my 24, 198.7 In my oral and subsequent written j
On February cpposition to this proposed rule change.
testimony I argued that Commission approval of this proposal would ignor only the lessons learned from the radiological. emergency that occurred s
Three Mile Is'iand but would undercut the bas 4 commands of the Ato Act and otherdtatutes. governing the NRC.
shake my firm be'def that emergency response pla s.l
,6; the public.
In my view, the Commission now. stands poised to disregard its man protect the public health and safety.
would not only serve to jeopardize the pu!dic health and safety of peopl Massachusetts but would signify a willingnMs:ta run roughshod over theTh t
traditional interests of sovereign states.
this proposed rule ~ change.
l I urge the Commission to reject its staff's r/ commendation.
/
r
[Sincerfy, l
! w id(l.llu1 & Ig : 3(b l
i l/
I
/
l'
/,1 o
.o a
o I
/
f
.; Kic aff S.j'Dakakls#
Governor /
k
'l j,
A 2
\\M J
Congregg of t!)e thinitch diptattg K
J)ouse of Representatives
- R!ashington.D.C. 20515.
o";l3
, w p
t October 20, 1987 1
(-
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
,[* '
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission u.
YI -
_1717 H Street, N.W.-
20555 Washington, D.C.
i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
d your efforts to
.As you know, we have strongly supporte i
We also amend the Commission's emergency planning regulat ons.
i sion in l
Lstrongly-approved of the approach proposed l
ig i
We therefore were "3
that approach.for your consideration. surprised and d d tion for ff proposal, l
a final Commission rule on this matter.
substantial thought.and effort <have gone-into the stat
{
r j
we believe_that
]
m It is also seriously at odds with what we had viewed as a 4,,
l to get g1 major purpose of the Commission in proposing its ru e:
he minds of state
/
i the Commission out of the business of reading. ton repeated o mfi.
E, 1
and' local officials, yet the staff proposal contemplates j
in just such expressed that purpose.-
rif hearings that will amount to lengthy.exercisesIn the langu.l l
d<
m the "likely response of...(State and local) o mind-reading.
l ll be absent probed in hearings. in. which such of ficials wi d differently entirely or.will testify that they intend to respon ill from the way in which the utility applicant predi
'j ld l
- "the precise actions which state and local governments wou respond.
J take" would be " resolved in individual adjudicatory l
ernments.
proceedings" that frequently will not include those-gov had understood These are precisely the sorts of inquiries that we the Commission wished to avoid.
i f<
y w
J t
ce Zech, Jr.
The Honorable'Lando W.
. october-20, 1987 Page 2 a-!The' inquiries come about under the proposal because t e h
staff is reluctant to. engage in assumptions and to circumscribe SO It is adjudicatory: hearings so.as to make the rule workable.-
of course the. case that,where states and local
'only a utility plan before it.
'is, it will be most difficult to. establish the: adequacy;of preparedness without:some understanding--assum i
The, staff is~ prepared to
. officials.with' respect to the plan.
assume.that such officials will use their'best efforts in-the is,.
event of an accident.
Will the officials make.use leaves unanswered such questions ast.Will'the officials develop:their own?
Will i
. ill l
A:
of the utility plan?
they carry out either in an actual emergency?
Exactly how w
'A111these questions are left.for.the. licensing.
boards to resolve in hearings that may well be boycotted:by the they do so?-
Such hearings inevitably
' officials whose conduct is at issue.
will be unwieldy and. inconsistent with any sense of an i
will be provided to licensing boards.and hearing participants as
. regulatory process.
to how they are to proceed in such hearings'o 1
Finally, given that licensing boards.will have available to 1
l officials
-.them only a utility plan (which state and; oca and an probably will ignore and thus view as irrelevant) understanding that such officials will do their best ad hoc _ in an emergency, it.will be difficult to make the finding that Even a adequate protective measures can and will.be taken.
i hearing demonstrating that the utility plan is exceptionally Under these strong may well not support such a finding.
circumstances, the staff recommendation may remove.
one possible cure for these problems is to make the assumptions and to establish the elements of guidance that are As to assumptions, the Commission now missing from the rule.
could reasonably provide that it should be assumed not only tha states and localities will exert their best efforts in times.o' an accident but also (i) that until they to plan and prepare for the accident, and (ii) develop their own plan, they will rely on the only plan These the utility's, if an accident occurs.
assumptions are dictated by common sense, are consistent with available, i.e.,
previous Commission decisions, and undoubtedly are su the rulemaking record.and hearing participants, the Commissio i
[o.D
]
V
~
~
ch Zech, Jr.
The' Honorable Lando W.
October 20, 1987 Page 3-l nning.is' feasible'at f
that where it can be shown that emergency p a ces are available' the geographical site.and that adequate resourill be sufficient to State.and local officials, these showings.w f
will be adequate.
7, to establish that state and local best ef ortsbly be demonstrated This would appear to be all that could reasonathe provision would -
under these conditions and, in light of that,almos I
L We are attaching proposed language to effect these changes.
4 if it is your purpose entirely to vitiate the.
state and local veto, we-feel strongly that the clearest.wa i h the "and will".
1 In short, achieve that purpose is.to do away entirely w tWhile.yol d 1 hieved the same' result.
requirement.
the "and will" language, it would have acIf, howev l" requirement I
L h
.in your. final rule, we feel that t e itself a broad set of assumptions that will allow it to mak d will-logical conclusion that adequate protective mea
^
L
~
d.
in the staff's recommendations are not broad enough, anf Sta be taken.
therefore will leave alive the possibility o vetoes.
Therefore, we urge y;u to-augment the staff'sd guidance recommendations with the additional assump
.1 f
Sincerely yours, p
/
e w&L m
~ charles Pashayan, Jr.7 s
Ralph'M Wall Member of Congr Member f Congress 1
j I
Attachment 1
.The Honorable Thomas M. RobertsThe cc:
The Honorable Kenneth M. Carr The Honorable Kenneth C. Rogers
vs i :-
PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR EMERGENCY PREP i
(c)(1)(lii) of.
In the second sentence of paragraph
" add "and the staff's proposal, after " based upon the' plan, h"
the assumptions and showings outilned in this paragrap.
sentence of the paragraph and Strike the last "In making its determination on substitute in lieu thereof:
i the the adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC will recogn ze (1)-in.an actual emergency state and local
. reality that f
'to government officials will exercise their best ef orts f
(ii) such the health and safety of the public, l protect nd officials will exercise their best efforts'to prepare a until such officials develop plan for an emergency, and (iii) ility a plan of their own, such officials will rely on the ut Moreover, where.it can be plan'in the event of an e argency.
demonstrated'on a case-by-case basis that emergency-the geographical location of the preparedness is feasible at facility and that adequate resources are available to state ii t to and local officials, such showings will be suff c en ill be
., establish that state and local best efforts w adequate."
e 2
e S
e b
~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - -. ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
......... <. o...o.....c......
t::::,?.**lC':< ' **"
2'!,J.?ll?!c;",*%
i.':.:'?;.'-?.%~L....,.
p1:',:::,*".*.i**
spl,7, leg [=~
- ds?.liEBE*o?.
13nited Etates $cnate Couuirfit CN (4viso%utut.=o, sec *0845
$f eeYton W.l"'NGTON DC 209:0-41fl s.. o amo no October 21, 1987
. Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a In March of this year, proposed rule that would amend its emergency planningthis in I support You personally deserve l
regulations.
impasse on emergency planning.
substantial credit for this effort.
1
'I I am disturbed, however, by several aspects of the final rule.
sincerely hope that these concerns will be addressed.
i l
As the Commission staff noces"in its recomm i
the emergency planning impasse withoutissue--whether utility p t ble on the basis of an adjudicatory record in a particular case.
difficult This creates the prospect of lengthy litigation without any in the certainty as to the ultimate licensability of the plant face of non-cooperation by state and local officials.
I hope the Commission will be able to avoid this pote blem.
were to adopt a rule that did not solve the current pro uncertainty.
j With kind regards, I am i
l
- incerely, h
mQ
\\
I Quent n N. Burdick l
Chairman n0300% 9 QNB:db:et i
J
w :
{
\\
y l
u.,
. ss.a<a.osn, o..v. c....
It!..L'"3:2:l"s'***
'22*:'d <'ll*.;*oe'l',"10 T
D'".'.,'t.'!*;#* E'athlittd $tatts $tDatt f.".n%;F" E EEE S:$
u n m. n n e, -,,,,,,, n,,,
.:v,::: = = =..
waseota ce nesio.ms October 21, 1987 Jr.
Honorable Lando Zech, I
l Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission
{
N.W.
1717 H Street, 20555 Washington, D.C.
f Dear Mr.
b j
the Commission is scheduled to receive a J
from che staff on SECY 87-257, relative toto firsf Knowing'that briefing, tomorrow, I want j
the emergency planning rule, I would also like to request
/
docket and made last-minute nature of this letter.that this letter be available to interested parties.
h WhileI do not wish to prejudge the decision of t e uestions in Commission, my, review of the SECY paper raises some q I would hope you and your fellow Commissioners wil my mind thatraise with the staff in your discussions.
d rule, it As I understand the Commission's original proposeits 1 d local governments acknowledged that the assumption "that all affected state an l i g throughout the would continue to cooperate,in emergency p ann nThe Commissi reate possible state and local vetoes of full powe life of the license."
tion.
The was intended to address the I understood it, to the Shoreham and proposed rule, as situation that has arisen with respect issuance of a full Seabrook plants by, in essence, permitting the l to fully power operating license in the face of the refusa t te and local participate in the emergency planning exercise by s a ts delineated governments if the applicant could satisfy four tes in the proposed rule.
h the j
Now, the Commission's staff, after consultation wit i tion of l
Federal Energy Management Agency, has recommended a va the proposal contained in SECY-87-257, wh cin the Commission's 1980f correct the regulatory problems inherent i
the Staff's recommendation does not spell out l
t and local how the NRC is to deal with a situation in which sta ethey w
- First, i
amendments.
l
- Hence, officials argue that utilize the utility's plan.
I it may be extremely I
emergency, but will not following the Staff's recommendation, i
dif ficult to reach the conclusion that adequate protect vebe t
,Y_rgY N ~ W Q measures "can and will" IPP
m
(
1 The Honorable Lando Zech October 21, 1987 Page Two i
Second, the Staff's recommendation seems to be premised upon )
lism. doctrine,"
an overly restrictive interpretation of the "reathe utility, and then the l
that ill which-appears to require 1first, read the minds _of.how state and local governments w f that l
respond in the future and then litigate the ef festiveness oto do in in
- NRC, This would appear difficult d/or local there_is no communication between the state an response.
officials and the utility.
f I do 'not believe that Congress regarded the concept o i
d the utility plans as including a request that the utilit es rea ill minds-of how non-cooperating state and local officials w response.
respond and then litigate the effectiveness of thatan element o
/
Certainly, this.was not over the emergency planning rule which have resulted d as both the House and'the Senate that many have interprete supporting the Commission's proposal.
this letter be circulated to your four fellow t
Commissioners as well as be placed in'the NRC's Public Docume I regerest that Room.
- cerely, J
N BREAUX nited States Senator
.