ML20236H574
| ML20236H574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/29/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8711040208 | |
| Download: ML20236H574 (17) | |
Text
-
01G N A_
?
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Af firmation/ Discussion and Vote Location:
Washington, D. c.
Date:
Thursday, October 29, 1987
(~
Pages:
1 - 13 1
/
I l
Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 16251 Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
B711040208 871029
.7 PDR
g_____________.
((
[.
p.
3 1
{
1 D I SCLA I MER 2
3 4
l L
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of'the l
7 United States Nuclear Regulatory
- Commission held on 8
10/29/87 in.the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
'N.W.,
Washington, D,C.
The meeting was open to'public 10.
attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11
' reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain i'
3 12 inaccuracies.
IS The transcript is intended solely for general 14 Informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.108, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may
- k 21 autherl=e.
22 1
/
23 l
24 25 l
6
^
j 1
.1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-
?.
n_
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE 6
PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
.9 Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
112 e
13 Thursday, October 29, 1987 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16
.notice, at 1:35 p.m.,
the Honorable LANDO W.
ZECH, Chairman of.
17 the Commission, presiding.
18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
19 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 22 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission i
23 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission 24 25 1
l
=
l 2
l l
1 STAFF PRESENT:
2 W.
PARLER s.
3 S.
CHILK 4'
M. MALSCH 1
5 P. CRANE 6
{
7-k s.
9 10 11 12 13 i
14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1
23 24 l
25 I'
t 3
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
[1:35 p.m.]
{
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
4 This is an affirmation session.
We have one item for 5
affirmation this afternoon.
The Secretary will now lead us 6
through that affirmation item.
7 MR. CHILK:
The paper before the Commission, Mr.
8' Chairman, is SECY 87-257 entitled, " Emergency Planning Rule."
9 In this paper the Commission is being asked to approve 1
10 revisions to NRC's emergency planning rule to establish 11 criteria and procedures for evaluating the adequacy of 12 emergency planning at the operating license review stage in situations in which a state and local government officials are 13 14 not participating in emergency planning.
15 It's my understanding,'Mr. Chairman,.that you and 16 perhaps your fellow Commissioners wish to make some remarks.
17 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Yes, we do.
I will proccod with a 18 statement.
19 In making decisions on the licensing of nucicar 20 powerplants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is constantly 21 called upon to make. judgments on whether the public health and 22 safety will be adequately protected.
23 Emergency planning is one area where the Commission is called upon to make such a judgment.
The proposed rule has 24 25 raised substantial interest and comment.
In the final version
_____.___m.___
- -. _ _ - _ - - - - - - ^ -
i 4
1
.of.:this rule, we have attempted to clarify the pbocedure to be followed in the case where state and local governments have Q
2 i
L 3
indicated an unwillingness to participate in radiological 4 -
emergency planning.. The following are'important considerations-5-
, in formulating my position on the rule:
6 First, the emergency planning rule is not a panacea 7
for any particular plant.
It does not guarantee:a license to
~!
6 any applicant.
The rule recognizes that in the case of 9-deficiencies: caused by non-participation of state and local L10 governments.the utility will have to take compensatory measures 11 in emergency planning..
12
- Second, the rule expresses the Commission's view that
.f'"
13 in a case of an actual emergency state and local governments
-\\
i 14 will indeed act responsibly and take actions to protect the 15
- public.
I 1
16 And third, and finally, adequate protection of the i
17.
public health and safety always has been, and always will.be 18 the basis on which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses 19 nuclear powerplants.
20 In adopting this rule the Commission is not lowering 21 that standard.
Therefore, I approve the recommendation of the I
22
. Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Counsel, and the Nuclear Regulatory' Commission staff to modify the Emergency Planning 23~
24 rule.
'25 Mr. Roberts.
I s
5 L.
1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Yes, I have a.brief statement.
'2 As was explained by General Counsel in the public briefing on October!22nd, the proposed change in our Emergency 3-4 Planning rule is designed only to remedy the omission from our 5
1980 rule of provisions dealing explicitly with situations in i
6
-which state'and local government officials decline to 7
participate in emergency planning.
6 As also was explained by our General Counsel, this 9
rule change. effectuates Congress' intent as expressed in
'10 section 109 of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980 and in two i
11 subsequent Authorization Acts that in such situations the NRC 12 evaluate the utilities emergency plan.
That Congressional 13 intent was recently reaffirmed when the House of
~
\\
14 Representatives, by a vote of 261 to 160, defeated an. amendment 15 which would have barred application in the rule change to 16 Seabrook and Shoreham.
}
17 The rule change does not, contrary to the claims of
)
18 some, guarantee that a license will be issued to any utility.
19 It merely provides a utility faced with non participation by 20; state or local officials with an opportunity to demonstrate 21-that emergency planning for its facility provides reasonable 22 assurance that public health and safety is adequately protected l
23 in spite of the non-participation by state and local officials 24
.in emergency planning for that facility.
25 I will vote for the rule change.
l 6
1 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr. Bernthal.
l 2
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Mr. Chairman, I,
too, have i
3 some comments I would like to read.
1 4
The Commission in promulgating this emergency i
5 planning rule change is belatedly implementing the full intent t
6 of Congress when in 1980 it directed the Commission to 7
establish rules for emergency planning.
Congress at that time
{
I B
envisioned two possible scenarios.
One in which state and I
i 9
local authorities cooperated in emergency planning; and one in
{
10 which they did not.
i 11 With regard to the second scenario, Congress could 12 not have been more clear than it was in the final conference 13 report accompanying the NRC's 1908 Authorization legislation.
14 And I'm quoting now from that legislation, because I want it to
{
15 be very clear that this Commission action today stands i
l 16 foursquare within the intent of Congress.
Quote, "If a state 17 or local plan does not exist that complies with the guidelines l
l 18 or rules the NRC may still issue an operating license, if it I
19 determines that a state, local or utility plan provides f
20 reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not
{
21 endangered by operation of the facility."
And I go on to quote f
22 further from that legislation, "The conferee sought to avoid 23 penalizing an applicant for an operating license if a state or i
l 24 locality does not submit an emergency response plan to the NRC l
for review or if the submitted plan does not satisfy all the I
25 j
r 1
i
7 1
guidelines or rules.
In the absence of a state or local plan 2
that complies with the guidelines or rules the compromise 3
permits NRC to issue an operating license if it determines that 4
a state, local or utility plan such as the emergency 5
preparedness plan submitted by the applicant provides 6
reasonable assurance that the public health and safety is not 7
endangered by operation of the facility."
That's what the B
Congress told the Commission.
9 It's clear that Congress did not consider the absence 10 of state and local cooperation in and of itself to bar the 11 Commission from issuing an operating license for a nuclear 12 powerplant; such cooperation was not therefore, in the eyes of 13 the Congress, a prerequisite to a Commission finding of 14 reasonable assurance.
15 Now, I would have preferred, and the Commission when 16 it approved its 1980 Emergency Planning rule, apparently 17 assumed that it would never be necessary to deal with the 1B circumstance that we now face.
19 Congress expected and encouraged, and I expect and 20 encourage state and local governments to work with the NRC and l
t 21 Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide the best l
22 possible protection for their citizens.
Nevertheless, it has 23 become clear that such cooperation can no longer be assumed and I
24 that guidelines must be given for the circumstance envisioned j
25 l
by Congress in which a state or locality refuses its t
8 1
cooperation.
2 Today's action is not being taken lightly.
The 3
change was exhaustively considered both through evaluation of the extensive comments received and in public meetings.
4 The 5
Commission's consideration went far beyond what is required in 6
a rulemaking of such limited scope and is unprecedented in the 7
four years I have sat on this Commission.
8 The rule modification the Commission is adopting J
9 today is nonetheless modest.
And it's instructive, and I hope, 10 reassuring to those who have seen the Commission's proposal 11 misrepresented from time to time to emphasize what this rule 12 modification does not do.
And I will repeat a little bit of 13 what my colleagues have said here for emphasis.
14 First, it does not diminish the standard of publiL 15 protection.
It does not assure the licensing of any particular 16 plant.
It does not assume that any plan developed without 17 state and local participation is as good as a plan developed 18 with state and local participation.
It does not read state and 19 local governments out of the emergency planning process.
And 20 finally, it does not mean that the Commission has predetermined 21 that utility plans will provide adequate protection without 22 state and local participation.
That's a matter that is going i
23 now to be adjudicated plant-by-plant and case-by-case.
24 What the rule does is uo protect prior Commission l
25 failure or rather to correct prior Commission failure to l
l
l 9'
g 1
g effectuate the intent of Congress that the licensing process-i L.
2' not be held hostage to the failure of states or localities to s -
3 cooperate in emergency planning, and thus, frustrate the will 4
of' Congress as expressed in the Atomic Energy Act, that final-5 decisions.on matters of nuclear safety' rest with the federal.
i e
6 government.
7 The requirements and procedures outlined-in the rule.
h
'8-reflect the Commission's confidence that' state and~1ocal
.9 governments will ultimately.make decisions that are in the best 10 interest of the~ people they are elected to serve.
11 Finally, it.has to be said that the circumstances'to 12 which this rule modification might apply are surely transient'.
13 Some 110 nuclear powerplants now have operating licenses in our 14 country; only a few applications remain to be acted upon by the 15 Commission.
Beyond that, there can.be little doubt that before 16 further nuclear powerplant siting and construction occurs in 17' America, this relationship between license applicants and the 18' states and localities such applicants serve must achieve a new 19-plane of understanding.
20 And I am hopeful that the Commission's action today 21 will ultimately contribute to that understanding,.and I fully 22 concur in the decision of the commission, Mr. Chairman.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Carr.
24 COMMISSIONER CARR:
I join my fellow Commissioners in 25 voting to approve the proposed changes to our Emergency l
1'
10 l
1 Planning rules.
i 2
The rationale for those changes is amply stated in 3
the statement of consideration that accompanies the rule, and 4'
one need not and should not look beyond that document to l
5 understand oi-reason for adopting the changes.
6 Simply stated, our rule'is consistent with 7
Congressional guidance and our own past precedent.
It permits 6'
a realistic appraisal of the capabilities and responsibilities 9
of all who have a role in emergency planning.
t 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Rogers.
I
{
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
As a new member of the 12 Cormiss on one of the first significant issues on which I have
-13 lhad an opportunity to focus my attention is the Emergency 14-Planning rule before the Commission today, 15 i
As with any important proposal presented to me, I i
.16 considered several questions in determining my position on the 17 proposal.
18 First, I asked why the proposal is being made?
19 Second, what does the proposal actually do?
And third, does 20 the proposal accomplish its goal?
21 It is my view that the Commission is obligated to 22 make determinations of the adequacy of emergency plans.
The 23 Commissi.on must determine whether a particular plan provides 24 adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Making 25 that determination is a Commission obligation, whether it is
11 1:
reviewing-a utility plan utility only plan or a plan involving o
l 2:
participation by state.and local governments.
, c.
3 Since there has been some question as to the Commiss' ion's authority and obligation to conduct such reviews
'l 4
5 there is ample reason for the Commission to revise its 6
' regulations in this area.
7 What this rule as stated in the Office of General' 8
Counsel draft of October 28th actually does is to clarify and 9
make explicit what has previously only been implicit in the 10
. Commission's regulations.
While Congress has stated in several k
11 Authorization bills that the NRC has the authority to consider 12' the adequacy of'a utility plan in the absence of a state and 13 local government radiological emergency plan, the Commission's 14 regulations'have not previously specifically addressed that
[
15' situation.
16 The proposed Dnergency Planning rule explicitly 17 expands our regulations to take. account of the broader variety 18 of emergency plans that might be adequate.
{
19 The rule also provides guidance to the Licensing 20 Boards for making a reasonable determination of the adequacy of 21 such plans.
22 I believe the proposed rule does achieve its goal of 23 clarification in determining whether to grant an operating 24
. license to an applicant, and that the Commission can consider i
1 25 utility emergency plans when state and local governments j
i l
1 12 1
declineLto participate in emergency planning.
2 It further recognizes the obvious reality that state 1
3 and local ~ governments with or without an emergency plan will do
.their best in an actual emergency to protect the public[
4 5
My emphasizing some reasonable assumptions concerning
'6' the review of utility plans, the rule provides usable guidance 7
to the Commission's adjudicatory Boards.
There is'a good 1
8 reason for the proposed rule and the framework the rule 9
establishes appears to be a reasonable approach to achieving 10
'the goals of the rule and assuring adequate protection of 11 public health and safety.
Therefore, I approve the 12-recommendation of the staff and the General Counsel with regard
'13 to the proposed changes to the Emergency Planning rules.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Mr., Secretary.
15 MR. CHILK:
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, all 16 Commissioners have approved Option 2 of the SECY paper 87-257 17 which provides for adopting the proposed rule as published for 18 public comment in March of 1987, with modifications and 19 clarifications consistent with the Commicsion's testimony, 20 responses to Congress on the intended scope and effect of the 21 rule, and Commissioners' comments.
22 1
The rule recognizes that although st. ate and local 23 participation in emergency planning is highly desirable and i
24
-indead essential for maximum effectiveness of emergency 25 planning and preparedness, Congress did not intend that the p
~
13 1
absence of such participation should preclude licensing of
'2 substantially' completed nuclear powerplants where there is a 3
utility prepared emergency plan that provides-reasonable 4
assurance of adequate protection of the public.
Consistent.
with the usual' practice this rule will'be effective 30 days 5
6 after' publication in the Federal Register.
7 Will you please affirm your vot'es.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Aye.
9 COMMISSIONER CARR:
Aye.
10
' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Aye.
1 11=
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Aye.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Aye.
13 MR. CHILK:
Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
That concludes the affirmation 15-session.
16
[Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m. the affirmation sessio'n was 17 concluded.)
18 19 20
- 21. '
22 l
23 24.
-25
____u
l T*
4T 1
l m
2 l
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
)
3 j
t oi
.i
'4
.This is to certify that the attached events of a
')
i
)
5
, meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
I 6
'7
'TITL2.0F MEETING:
Af fi.rmation/ Discussion and Vote B
PLACE'0F MEETING:
Washington,,D.C.
i 9
DATE OF MIETING:
. Thursday, October 29, 1987 10 l
J
' 11
. were held-as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for.the file of the Commission taken (7
.)
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17
_______9_9&__f_E98___________
i is Joan Rose
-19 20 31 l
22 Ann Riley & Associates, 1.'4d.
l' 23
)
24 25 I
l LL-i
_-___m,
- TPN!SMITTALTO
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips 4
.f The Public Document Room
' ADVANCED COPY TO:
///S /f 2 f
DATE:
FROMi SECY Correspondence & Records Branch.
h.
E
?
Attached are copies of a Commission' meeting transcript and related meeting g
P i
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the -Daily Accession List and j
placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or h
j required.
.g Meeting
Title:
dM./ M %dd q
Meeting Date:
/0/Pf/f7.
Open X
Closed Itein Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS
- 8 to POR Copy I
- 1. TRANSCRIPT-1 1
l' 4
2.
i
'3
'{
d 4~
kl l
M\\
3 s.
l 8!
6.
s
~
$j M
{
- POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY l
]
papers.
al.
bY YbYb kbIlh0bYb bbYb bl b
b lYb b l
]