ML22230A134
| ML22230A134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/15/1979 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M791015 | |
| Download: ML22230A134 (59) | |
Text
~ETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORD NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlSSl* N IN THE MATTER Of:
PUBLIC HEARING BRIEFING ON SITING POLICY TASK FORCE REPORT Place_ Washington, D.C.
Date -
Monday, October 15, 1979 Pages 1 -
56 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street
- Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATIONWIDE COVERAGE - DAILY Telephone:
{202) 347-3700
CR7701 1
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Monday, October 15, 1979 in t..'1-ie Cornmissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
- inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
CR 7701 AR:ar 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING BRIEFING ON SITING POLICY TASK FORCE REPORT Room 1130 1717 H Street Northwest Washington, D.C.
Monday, October 15, 1979 la The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:50 p.m.
BEFORE:
Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman.
Richard T. Kennedy, Commissioner.
Peter A. Bradford, Commissioner.
John T. Ahearne, Commissioner.
ALSO PRESENT:
Messrs. Malsch, Sege, Gos sick, Moore,* *Muller, and Norris.
1e 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 P R O C E E D I N G S 2
[Comrniss*ioner Bradford**not *present.]
CHAifil'l.AN HENDRIE:
I'm sorry that we're having to start a little late this afternoon.
The Commission was meeting until practically 1:30 on some other 'matters, and needed a moment or two for a cup of coffee.
The subject this afternoon is a briefing on the siting policy task force report.
We have the staff assembled and ready to go.
Lou, please go ahead.
MR. GOSSICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you indicated, this is a continuation of the Commission's consideration of the siting policy task force report.
As you recall at the meeting on September 5, the task force had reviewed the first five of the nine recomrnenda-tions for the task force.
- Je intend this afternoon to review the remaining four recommendations and to discuss the relationship between the task force recommendations and the PRIG petition in the :r:nmner in. which risk assessment is used for decision-making in other agencies, and if the Commission wishes, we're also prepared to summarize a follow-up program leading to rulemaking and modification of 10 CFR Part 100, as recommended by the task force.
Dan Muller will proceed with the briefing.
MR. MULLER:
Thank you, Lou.
2 3
4 s
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 3
Could I have the first slide, please, Cindy.
[Slide.]
This is the same slide that I used during previous briefing, and I thought it would be useful to put it up briefly to bring everyone µp to speed on the various goals that the task force established, and as you see, the goals are to strengthen siting as,a factor in defense in depth, or to reaffirm siting as a factor in defense in depth; to take into consideration in siting the risk of Class 9 accidents; and to require that sites be selected that would minimize the ov.erall risk from energy generation.
And we discussed these goals at some length at the last meeting, and I propose that we go ahead with the recommendations, so let me have the next slide.
This is slide B.
[Slide.]
This is the summary of the first five -- three of the first five recommendations.
Again to bring everyone up to speed, recommendation 1 was to establish a fixed exclusion and emergency planning distance, *and also set limits on population density and distribution, and to eliminate the requirement for radiation dose calculation for siting Iilurposes.
Recommendation No. 2 was to established fixed stand-off distances for manmade or natural hazards.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 4
Recommendation 3 was to require the ability of interdictive measures to limit groundwater contamination in Class 9 adcidents.
May we have the next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Recommendation 4, which is an action already before the Commission to revise Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100 was supported, that action.
And in. Recommendation No. 5, was to require to consider post-licensing changes and some accommodation of post-licensing changes in offsite activities.
And now I'd like to go on with that very brief summary.
I'd like to go to recommendation No. 6, which is slide 13.
May I have slide 13, please.
[Slide.]
This recommendation originally started with the thought that perhaps it would be useful to consider safety issu s in the same way or in the context of reviewing alternative sites.
Basically whether we should go through a NEPA process from the same safety point of view.
The task force debated this at some length and finally decided to not do this because the previous recommenda-tions, at least recommendations 1 and 2, really accommodate probably 90 percent or so of the problems that would occur
1 2
3 I -\\
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 5
in this safety point of view, so we felt that it would be better now to continue with our approach on site selection from a safety point of view, but put into the regulation some admonition that there would be no unfavorable characteristics requiring unique or unusual design.
Effectively this would be a heroic activity to accommodate some unusual design feature, unusual characteristic of a site.
This would be of a nature to avoid sites with, say, significant solution cavities underneath, or to avoid sites with --*
MR. MOORE:
Flooding.
MR. MULLER-:
Yes, unusual flooding characteristics.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you plan on spelling that out exclusively, or leave it in that sort of general term?
MR. MULLER:
We really felt that it was better to leave it in general terms because I'm not really sure what the all of the I wouldn't want to try to -- try to accommodate all of the unusual site features that there may be.
I've used two examples, and I'm sure there are more.
[Commissioner Bradford entered the hearing at 2:00 p.m.]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would it be fair to say to interpret that you couple this with the point that you
I -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 6
don't believe that it is appropriate to require _additional
(
modification of the plant because of site features, and therefore what you're trying to do is to all at the same time then, as you're setting up certain requirements which you would believe would lead you to conclude that you could then look at plant design in the absence of site features, similarly you would not want to have.existing any sites being considered that would contravene that approach, so that after you've gone through the argument that you don't have to look at the sites, you want to make sure that you don't have to look at the sites?
MR. MULLER:
I think that's a fair statement.
I was really recognizing that there will be some characteristics of sites that require site-specific design and particular foundation characteristics, and also flooding characteristics.
What I wanted to do was to include -- to avoid heroics in this regard, to avoid engineering that's very much on the forefront of the current technology.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How would you propose that either an intervenor group or the licensed applicant or the Board understand how to interpret this?
MR. NORRIS:
There is a suggestion of that approach in the proposal for making alternative sites, where a figure of 5 percent of the total cost of the plant is suggested as a sort of a threshold for what might be
2 3
4 s
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 I -
22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 7
considered an unusual engineered*feature~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:. But,would that mean then
-- I guess that me~ns you would carry through the design of the plant far enough for each of the alternate sites so that you could be able to tell whether or not the total cost of the site features would exceed 5 percent?
MR. NORRIS:
By and large.
By *the time this site selection process gets to that point in time, the applicant has the estimates engineered -- engineering estimate of the costs that one could discern a sizeable amount of money is -- in other words, this is not requiring any unusual effort on the part of the applicant.
By the time we get to that point, they do have in fact estimates of engineering costs.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And what's the fraction again?
MR.-NORRIS: It is suggested that 5 percent of the total cost of the plant.
COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it wasn't so much that I didn't think you could tell 5 percent, I was wondering could he tell the difference between 4 and 6.
MR. NORRIS:
Well, any time you would have a featur that is approaching that amount, I think it's something that would trigger the attention to that site feature.
I think that's really the purpose of that figure.
It's not meant to b interpreted --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25
\\
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would it be an accumulative figure, that is ifa number of features necessitated by the site totaled something of the order of 5 percent, would that trigger?
MR. MULLER:
We really meant to consider a site with some unique feature. All sites are going to require specific designs, because at least for the foundation characteristics of the plant, and we only meant this to be considered as someone taking an unusual feature that goes beyond what I would characterize as normal design.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would it be unlikely that there would be more than one?
MR. MULLER:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Of the ones you're talking about?
MR. MULLER:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can you think of a current site which would fall outside of that requirement?
What I'm trying to get at, is this in any way different than MR. MULLER:
Gerry, you had one that was flooding, did you not?
MR. HULMAN:
Three Mile Island.
Flooding all around the safety-related facilities.
For flood protection. It also has its integral part as some
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 9
of the structures,built-in waterproofing for the main facility.*
I believe that the cost of providing that flood protection might approach 5 percent of the original cost of the facility.
MR. NORRIS:
There was another example of an existing site, I think there were some figures CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Move the mike up and maybe talk louder.
We're having trouble hearing.
MR. NORRIS:
The essential hardening of the plant was being calculated on a sizeable amount of money.
I am not sure if it was 5 percent, but that would be another example of the site which would require some unusual features.
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It!s a little hard to put it in terms of fraction of some plant cost.
That really isn't what -
you're after. If there is an expensive, but perfectly obvious and well assured way to deal with a unique site feature, then whether that makes the plant more expensive when it's properly done, what the Applicant c.an stand, in terms of his power plant economics, ought to be his business, and I don't know that it's necessarily ours to say, well, it's more expensive.
MR. MULLER:
That really wasn't the intent of the recommendation.
The recommendation was unique or unusual designs.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so, but somehow that's been converted to 5 perce*nt of the project costs, and they' re
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 10 not the same, is the point that I make.
Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADPORD:
Forgive me if I've missed something that you've already covered, but how do you handle that 5 percent when there are expected to be several units at the site?
MR. NORRIS:
Now you have to remember, this is not part of our recommendation.
We are discussing the element that comes from the Bpard's-rulemakingon alternative sites.
The 5 percent would be per plant. It is meant to b specific to one plant~
MR. MOORE:
Per unit.
MR. MULLER:
It would be a per unit cost.
MR. NORRIS:
That's one way to identify unusual MR. MOORE:
And that's the way it will be handled very likely, in the environmental review, and the safety revie.
The idea is that if it requires engineering fixes, where there is sufficient uncertainty, that a site without this bad site feature would be safer, that's really what we're looking for in the safety review.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any time you get a moment's pause, Dan, you b.etter plunge ahead.
MR. MULLER:
Yes, sir~
Recommendation 7, please.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Don't take too long, they'll think of something else.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 11
[Slide.]
MR. MULLER:
This recommendation is to put a requirement in the regulations that we establish site approval at some early decision date. Currently for the early site reviews, r there** is a requir.ement for reopening on an. issue that says significant new information that would substantially affect the earlier decision.
We do net have the same reopening criteria for construction permits, and basically what we would propose is a criterion something like that, that would make the decision at the various stages of the licensing process regarding siting final, and not allow the opportunity to open and reopen.-
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the current threshold for reopening?
MR. MULLER:
For early site reviews, it's significant new information that would substantially affect the earlier decision.
For construction permits, the regulations at the present time are silent.
COM.T"iISSIONER BFADFORD:. But you can in fact, you can in fact easily reopen it after the CP has been if?sued?
MR.- MULLER:
Well, that's true.
That's the problem that we see, that we would like to avoid.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That you can or that you can't?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
,17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace.rel Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 12 MR. MULLER:
You can -- for instance, at the operating license stage, you can reopen.
You can reopen on siting issues, and that's what we'd like to avoid.
CHAIRM.AN HENDRIE:
Would the site approval that you refer to here come with the -- what; the CP.,. the Board's decision on the CP?
Would it come with the LWA?
Somewhere in between?
MR. MULLER:
It would come -- if we had an early site review, be proposed that the decision in the early site review would be final on th_e siting, be final at that time.
If the decision were mad~ without an early site review at the time of the CP, then we propose that that siting decision be final at that time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
MR. MULLER:
Well, LWA, yes, it could be LWA.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Final, though, in the contex as you point out, it's still openable.
MR. MULLER:
It's still openable with some caveat
.relative to significant new information.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
With the threshold substantially higher than sort of the initial threshold for conditions of whatever type that interested parties might bring in a proceeding.
So that comes around.
If indeed the regulation were written so that you could get to that stage at LWA time, you still may have a substantial amount of construction
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 13 permit proceedings still to go, and it would then foreclose,
- say, for this higher-threshold, in-the balance of that period, as well as on through the operating licensing proceeding.
COMMISSIONER :ruIEARNE:
Dan, __ could you identify a little bit more clearly for me the problem for which this is exclusion?
MR. MULLER:
The problem is that primarily, I guess, with regard to some contentions that have been brought up during the operating license reviews,that really are siting type contentions, it's really that type of --
COMMISSIONER:
Well, but the fact that the contentio is raised isn!t in* itself: a,:pi:oblem, is it?
MR. MULLER:
No, it's the point -- it's the futility of considering a siting issue when the plant is already sited there, and we have already faced that issue back some years ago, when a valid construction permit was issued.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, what is it in the current procedures that make -- I'm not sure for whom this is the problem that you're identifying.
MR. MULLER:
It's a Staff problem.
MR. NORPJS:
In the OL stage, auite often they issue alternative sites being brought up routinely, other matters, without having to identify any significant new information.
It is being routinely reviewed, and subject to
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 14 a considerable --
CO.MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is a contested OL hearing?
MR. NORRIS:
Yes.
Need for power issues are
. routinely reviewed.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But you're not talking about need for power here, or are you?
MR. NORRIS:
Well, it goes to the siting issues.
Not directly, it is not, although some people claim it is.
The question is of not having before you any significant new information.
Those issues are litigated and reviewed and re-reviewed.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You've almost defined the issue away.
How often does it happen, is what I was trying to get at, that the intervenors actually raise alternative siting issues without what could be called significant new information at the operating license stage?
MR. NORRIS:
Not necessarily the alternative, but from the experience I had, almost in all cases siting issues are raised all over again, in absence of having any significant new information.
COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE:
At the operating license?
MR. NORRIS:
At the operating license, as.. *well as-,
cp--~* although'* an LWA has already' been is sued, which ostensibly takes care of all the siting issues, i.e., all of the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25
. 15 environmental issues plus all of the site suitability issues have been taken care of at the OL -- I mean at the LWA stage, and we. do have a partial initial decision, and then at the CP hearing itself, some of the siting issues COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does it happen again at the OL, *and how of ten?
MR. MULLEN:
I'm not sure -- you're asking fairly specific questions, and I'm not sure, I don't think CHAIRMANCHENDRIE :~:.. _;,_*,
Well, the answer seemed to be --
frequently.
MR. MULLEN:
I don't think we are ready here CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The answer seemed to be COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That was what the answer seemed to be, and that was -- it seemed like an extraordinary answer COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought so, too, and I was wondering how frequently.
I mean is this like half the cases or 10 percent, or what?
MR. NORRIS:
I can't answer that specifically.
MR. MULLEN:
We are not really prepared to answer that one right now.
MR. SEGE:
Perhaps I could offer a somewhat different statement of the problem that this might provide an answer to.
With the immediate effectiveness rule, it is
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 16 possible for construction to get pretty far along by the time site-related issues get settled, and a serious contention of site approval related issues have typically come much earlie in the review_process than the operating license stage, and there are the reason for the minority of cases, but in those cases they have sometimes been quite troublesome, as in*
Seabrook, a few other cases.
The settlement of site approval earlier in the process could be a stratagem for limiting the likelihood of thes.e. issues arising in. the late stage of the process.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Marty, are*the rules under which the Boardsr,operate such that the currently -- the presiding-officer has no way of limiting the recontention of issues without significant events?
MR. MALSCH:
Well, there's two problems:
One is there is an Atomic Energy problem, and there is a somewhat lesser NEPA problem.
The Atomic Energy Act problem arises because of the Commission's regulations would 1 reflect a licensing view of the two-step licensing process which says that a CP does not amount to any final Commission approval, either the design or the site.
So that at the operating license stage,*there is no final, binding Commission decision on either design or site suitability.
Now that's complicated by the fact that under at least present practice you don't consider some costs in the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 17 safety review, so in theory you re-review site suitability
(
afresh as if the plant had never been built, at the operating license stage.
Now the problem here is you can raise a number of contentions.
For example, someone could argue at -the operating license stage of a completed plant that the so-called incredible accident chosen for a Part 100* stage was improperly cho:sen:at the CP stage, and should be some kind of a meltdown accident.
On that ground, the site is no longer suitable.
That's a perfectly legitimate contention to make at the operating license stage, and under our present regulations there is nothing that would disallow something from raising an issue like that, but a NEPA question is similar, except there you can consider some costs, so it's much less likely that the new information that would arise or the new considera-tions one might bring to bear would actually have an impact.
So in dimension and theory, anyway, most NEPA site suitability contentions could be gotten rid of rather easily by filing a motion for summary disposition, and argue, "Hey, listen, you may have had something five or 10 yeaIS ago, but considering the fact that the plant is now 60 or 70 percent built, you c~n*t show that the environmental advantages of going to another site are so significant as to outweigh this huge investment."
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 18 Same theory, it's a problem under both.NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act.
In theory, it ought to be somewhat less of a problem under NEPA than the Atomic Energy Act, but it's there, because under the present practice, the CP does not constitute any final Commission approval. at the site.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE*: This kind of changed the regulatio,
but in fact makes it explicit that it is pending some~-
pending new information and so on.
MR. MALSCH:
Right.
It would say that a Commissio permit decision is a kind of final Commission decision on site suitability with a sort of escape hatch, taking into account good cause or whatever new information might exist later on.
MR. MULLER:
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
This recommendation is to revise Part 51, so that a final decision by a state agency that would disapprove a site would be a sufficient basis for the NRC to terminate the review.
There have been times when a state agency or some state authority has said that there is no way that we will allow a nuclear plant to be built at this time, and y~t we conceivably could have a valid construction permit applica-tion, and the question is what do we do about that sort of a situation.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reponers, Inc.
25 19 We have, for instance, just now heard by telephone that the New York State Siting Board has rejected the Newhaven application, and yet we are in the middle of a construction permit review for this.
The question is, what do we do?
Do we still have a valid construction permit application for the applicant, and yet a state agency has said no?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now the way you have worded it in your paper is officially and finally.
MR. MULLER:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So I take it that what you are saying is that given that different states have different types of procedures, that this is an action to be implemented considering on a state-by-state basis what their particular procedures are, and it has the finality a~pect.
There are no further appeals within that state?
Is that what you are saying?
MR. MULLER:
That's what they are trying to say, that is the final decision by a state.
There have been occasions where a state authority of some sort has made a speech and said, "I don't think this nuclear plant should be there."
That is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to terminate the review.
It would have-to be something that would have some finality.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yeah, some finality.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-era! Reporters, Inc.
25 20 MR. MULLER:
Something -- excuse me, something that would have finality.
MR. NORRIS:
But short of court appe~ls.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But as far as the state it-self is concerned. * -
MR. MULLER:
Then the finat part of this recommenda-tion, the Staff would bring this termination to the Commission for its review.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, if the state really is final in its rejecting, I'm not sure what the significance is.
MR. MULLER:
Well, it's felt that very often there is some policy or political issues involved with this.
For instance, an election may be coming up and the state public utility commission may be subject to reelection.
The:te's that type of thing.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They're suggesting that we might be able to -- or might be willing to continue it?
MR. NORRIS:
If it is a political decision, then maybe the political side of NRC should deal with it, instead of the technical staff.
It's definitely not a technical. issue.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What are applicants' rights and so on here?
MR. MULLER:
Frequently the applicants have said when there is some negative indication from the state, they have said please continue the review, we'd like it to continue.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 21 We fully expect that this decision will be reversed, or some-thing of that sort, and then we_ are in.the awkward position of, we feel, sort of going against the wishes of the state.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But there is a federal law that says a proper application timely.filed, and so on, will be acted on in a responsible manner _by the federal employees.
Why does that give you a problem?
MR. MULLER:
That's what we operate under at the present time.* If we feel that -- by continuing the review, we're pressuring the state --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But state approval is require, and they have rejected it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't see why you're continuing the review.
It would be seen by anyone as our, that is the NRC, pressuring the state.
MR. MOORE:
States have expressed a view that we were prejudicing their prerogative, state staffs, energy commission staffs, siting board staffs.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me give the alternate view.
I'm not sure why we should contirlue to spend our resources reviewing something if the state has in their term finally rejected it. If that acceptance is --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's the word that needs further consideration, what does finally mean.
And as a practical matter, if there is any kind of an appeal which J
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace.ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 22 can be taken, that is not -final; right?
MR. MULLER:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay *. Let's. suppose that's the case.
A siting board has said no, and there is another board, maybe the Public Utilities Commission gets a crack*at this as well, and under this definition I assum~ we would continue.
MR. MULLER:
That's right, until the Public Utilities Commission --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that since the Siting Board said no, our continuing even at that point would be pressure on the state? If it is in the one case, it is in the other.
Well, so I'm not sure how that comes into the equation at all.
MR. NORRIS:
There is another consideration, too, and that is recognizing even that some of the so-called final decisions in some states can be ultimately reversed by different administration and so on.
Usually it's a questio of time, and the question then becomes should we expend our resources for something and finish a review which would have to be probably done all over again in three or four years in a situation like that.
There are several considerations, not just a matter of pressuring, although we've had statements coming from states saying that we are the applicants at that time
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 23 tried to use the federal decision in trying to put pressure on the local COMMISSIONER:KENNEDY-:" :-Wouitl ~1.ntenninate -allreview on the CP, or just that aspect of the review that had to do with siting?
MR. MULLER:
The proposal is to terminate all review.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All review?
MR. MULLER:
Yes.
Effectively the utility has applied for a construction permit at a given site for a given plant, and the proposal would terminate that review of that application, mainly because if they propose to move to a different site or a different state or something, then likely it would be a rather different application that would come in, because there would be new design features to accommodate the site of the plant.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But a whole lot of design features wouldn't.
MR. MULLER:
A lot of it would be identical.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recall that we moved Newboldt to Salem on an amendment, didn't we?
MR. MULLER:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was pretty good work.
It saved an awful lot of paper.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Were you faced with a final
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 r
24 decision of the state agency?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was an NRC decision.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
v7hat you're really looking for here is some statement of what the Staff's position ought to be in the face of a final decision, at least until the Commission tells you to do the other one.
I would say to me it seems reasonable that somethin legitimately can be called a final decision, that while there might be some reason we'd want to continue the review, the presumption would be to withhold it, simply on the resource consideration.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would, too, if, in fact, we got to understand what a final decision was.
Because it's obvious at that point that plant isn't going to be built.
Certainly absent a substantial period of time in which the question would be reconsidered-by state authorities, which could take a lot of time.
I understand that, and would agree, as long as we understand what final means.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And that's why it's state by state.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you do where the applicant is sued in a state or federal court over the decisio of the state body?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would follow the state body's judgment.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace*.
ral Reporters, Inc.
25 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If we were confident that this was a "final judgment" on the part of those authorities in the: states empowered to make such judgments, then absent a clear indication that that's going to be overturned promptly, I think we have to assume that plant is not going to be built in that location, and therefore that review qught to be, I think, terminated *.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I suppose if the -- there will be some situations in which the applicant will say, all right, that decision is final, just take that plant off and forget it, forget that I've applied.
There will be others in which he will say I have appealed, please keep me in line somewhere, and there ought to be some way perhaps to accommodate -- there should be some difference between an inactive application and one that's been withdrawn.
But in any case, you wouldn't want to leave it in a situation where we were devoting full Staff resources to review that was going to be in court for years.
MR. NORRIS:
The example of the Newhaven applicatio
- is a good point in this case, because Public Service Commissio of New York recommended that position to the Siting Board.
The Siting Board in fact turned it down on that basis.
In addition, there is a new energy plan for the state of New York, which almost precludes any new nuclear
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace.ral Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 26 power plants in a situation fike this.
And the governor of the state of New York came out clearly against power plants.
It certainly would be several_years in the state of New York before that would change.
It would take 'several years.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree, Peter, that it should be sort of set aside, but not withdrawn.
MR. MULLER:
May I have slide No. 9?
[Slide.]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What you extend is a veto over a plant, then, to any state agency-which has a role in state approval, however great or small.
COMMISSIONER AHEAR.,~E:
Well, no, the extent that it's a final --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only if that veto by that agency can be considered to be a binding one.
That is unless it is reversed by some appropriate agency, that is the rule.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you allow this kind of basis, then any one of.several state agencies can pronounce a decision on a plant for its phase of responsibility for a plant file, and by then turning off the NRC review, you foreclose the plant whatever subsequent actions may come down the line, since the NRC stuff takes several years, and you lose it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only if that agency's
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 decision of its own, on. its own merits, regardless of any other.agency's action is in fact the ultimate decision.
If that agency -- if that agency's decision, whatever it is, is contingent upon the action of some other agency, that is not a final decis~on, no matter what the agency is saying, even if it says no.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
To take the Newhaven case, the recommendation of the New York Public Service Commission to the New York Siting Commission would not turn off the NRC review.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Nor the governor's statement nor the energy plan.
MR. NORRIS:
Of the Siting Board, which is the authority that has -- the body that has the aut~ority to site or not site, now because there is still an appeal, they have a chance before the Siting Board, but after that the only thing they have left is the court.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They have an appeal before the Siting Board.
MR. NORRIS:
Yes.
If you're cut off here on the final decision of the Siting Board, there's not much point in going to court.
You'd kill them here.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, not kill them.
There must be some comparable process that_goes on in the shop that is manufacturing the pressure vessel, when they
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16-17 18 19 20 21 22 23 bu2 24 Ace-rel Reporters, Inc.
25 28 suddenly learn that the application is going to slip because it's now tangled up in court review.
That may have been a very urgent another.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sell it to somebody else.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We shift our resources to CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But you lose it in the pressure vessel shop, you sell the one you are halfway down the line with to somebody else, and you don't make one on the end.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You've lost whatever time is involved.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Here it loses the time.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If that company comes.back and wants to get a pressure vessel after having it sold, it now has to have another one.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think power' )plant projects don't go that way.
Time is involved in getting started and then getting through NRC review are enough,. so I think if you terminate review here, why, that's the end of the project.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not advocating that we burn the papers.
To the extent that if the applicant wins in court, it's going to be possible to pick the review up again.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But even there it's going
1 2
3 4
s 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 29 to depend COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would think no more loss than there would be involved in whatever the applicant then had to go through to get himself back in line for a pressure vessel.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'd be surprised.
Why don't we go on to the next item up there.
MR. MULLER:
- The final recommendation is not a recommendation to change the regulations to modify Part 100
- or Part 50.
It is to address an ongoing problem that we have, and effectively to recommend a research problem -- a research program to handle this problem, and it is developing a basis for comparing risks, for comparing external events for all of the various sitings fields -- that isn't the right word disciplines, siting disciplines that are involved.
The different disciplines have developed over the years different bases for establishing the conservatism of their values, and we feel that if we could develop some sort of a common basis for comparing the risks across the disciplin~s, it will help us to allow or provide a better management decision.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have any sense of how long it takes a research program to reach a conclusion that--*
would be worthwhile?
MR. MOORE:
We've talked with Sol Levine about it
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 30 and there are some efforts in the.individual disciplines now to get.those on a probabilistic basis, and once you've done that, you've really got the basis for comparison.
We have not talked with his people to.be.sure that they've got programs underway, inlt.all of the disciplines.
My guess would be probab_ly -- oh, probably take a couple of years.
Wouldn't you agree with that, Gerry?
Is Gerry there?
Okay.
I'll state without.contradiction a couple of years.
But it doesn't affect, as Dan said, this doesn't affect the timing of the other recommendations that were involved.
MR. MULLER:
This is a rather independent effort.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yeah, I understand that, but it just seemed to be sort of external recommendation that I would have guessed, once you start talking about common bases, you're really talking three to five years at a minimum.
I recognize it's independent.
MR. MULLER:
It's been one of the nagging problems that we've had because different disciplines have evolved over the years with different bases for making decisions, and we haV:en't got a good handle on the level of conservatism from one discipline to another.
With that, I'd like to go gu.ickly to slide No. 19.
[Slide.]
This is my own private numbering system.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 T.2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 31 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before you do that, can you talk about the comment that says the task force does not enders the narrow**- issue the site-specific Class 9 accidents should
)
be analyzed and weighed in the decisional process, and explain why.
MR. MULLER:
Where is that?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's on page 67.
That's one of the differing task force and working group opinions and office comments.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Were you going to address the differing opinions?
MR. MULLER:
I hadn't really planned on it. I'll be *glad to do that, though.
Let me respond.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You've got a lot of reasons, but the first one says if the recommendations on section 3 are implemented, the task force concludes for reasons expressed in section 3, that site-specific class 9 accident risk assessments will not contribute significantly to the selection of better sites.
I just wanted to hear your words -- I read the thing, I just wanted to know what this means to you.
MR. MULLER:
In the first place, we're talking about site-specific analyses of Class 9 accident consequences for each and every site.
2 3
I -
4 I
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 32 We feel that it would make -- that that type of an analysis on a site-specific basis, and it's based really on our: experience in conducting the Perryman review, we found primarily that the public risk from Class 9 accidents, the public risk from Class 9.accidents was pretty well pro-portional to the population density in the vicinity of the site; that the consequences of the Class 9 accident dm*
not really seriously influence this perception of public risk.
So we felt that we can accommodate the same thing by doing a generic analysis of Class 9 accident risk and basing our population density, distribution, and stand-off distances on this generic*analysis.
This is with the assumption that sites throughout the country are reasonably homogenous in terms of primarily meteorological characteristics, which is one of the significant influences -- significant items that influences the risk to the public.
MR. MOORE:
Commissioner Kennedy, another*-~
CHAIRMAN, HENDRIE::
Implicit in that set of remarks, I think is the proposition that the sort of consequence modeling programs that are used in.the kind of consequence models that came out of WASH 1400 and evolved since then and so on, if you take the population distribution out of the problem, then the uncertainties in the modeling and so on are enough so that all except the most extraordinarily awkward
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 33 sites will look alike.
You see, if you take the population, the particµlar population distributions away, then there just isn't going to be enough difference between any kind of reasonable set of sites, but what the errors-~ you know, just the intrinsic awkwardnesses in the calculation,don't just mush them all together.
So really what they've done is to say, okay, in that case, why don't we look at population distribution in some overall and generic way, and that's good enough.
MR. NO~RIS:
In fact, trying to do site-specific risk calculation would give the appearance that we have confidence in our ability to discriminate among sites, e.b*::.that basis, but the state of the art simply isn't there that we could do that, and it would not enhance the disclosure element.
MR. MULLEN:
Now there's some implication in some of the comments that we are meaning to not disclose what the risk from Class 9 accidents would be when the site *is selected.
We really never meant that to be.
We do agree that on some basis the risks should be calculated and probably included in the environmental impact statement, but realizing that we are talking about siting here, and then we propose to do the siting on a generic basis.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Since you're addressing --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I
24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 34 MR. MULLER:
Shall I go back and run through the differing opinions?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That reminds me, let's see, at some point or other, we propose to address in fact that ques-tion of Class 9, a question of treatment of Class 9*accidents, probably in the environmental review.
- It was a charge which was sent back to Staff, I believe, in connection with the Offshore Power Systems decision of, what, a couple of months ago?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think a couple of weeks.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Couple of weeks, couple of months.
And I wonder if the Secretariat or Staff or anybody recollects where that effort went and is going, and when it's likely to come back to be dealt with.
Ah, a candidate.
Edson.
MR. CASE:
It came to NRR for action, and as part of our system has been referred to Mr. Muller.
[Laughter.]
MR~ MULLER::
And it is in~the -- it's left my shop, it's just getting into the concurrence process.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
MR. MULLER:
So there is CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So there is a proposition under-way and I would hope it would arrive here in due time.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-rel Reporters, Inc.
25 35 MR. MULLER:
Well, the way things go on the concurrence process, you know, it might be a week yet or so.
times.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I would think easily that.
MR. MULLER:
If not more.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You may iterate a couple of Okay, I wanted ~o make sure that my recollection that indeed it was forthcoming was correct, and that somebody showed some signs of recognizing that there was such an object.
MR. MULLER:
The answer is, it is forthcoming.
And it is, as you recognize, a controversial issue.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I hardly find it worthwhile coming to meetings if it isn't a controversial issue.
MR. MULLER:
Shall I go over the differing opinions.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like that.
MR. MULLER:
Yes, sir.
Cindy, I want to go to slide No. 17.
[Slide.]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Some of those gentlemen are here, so you might want to hear them, too.
MR. MULLER:
Yes, -I really intended to do no more than introduce the subject, and then -ask the individuals involved to -- it's not a very great slide, but this particular differing opinion was primarily a different
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-rel Reporters, Inc, 25 36 approach to reaching the same goal.
I guess without going* into too much -- I don't see any _point in my paraphrasing the thing.
Mal, are you -- do you want to summarize your differing opinion?
MR. ERNST:
I guess it's not really a differing opinion, as much as Dan expressed, it's perhaps a different approach.
I think the task force position that would likely lead to nonprd.ductive decision-making p.rocess to throw residua risk calculations into the decisional process is certainly supported by myself very, ve:rystrongly, as a matter of fact.
I do think it would be very useful to have that in the decision process, if we knew really how to handle it, and the basic problem is that the uncertainties are so large that you would not know how to handle the end product once you had it.
I think the critical question really is where can reactors generically be sited, and you have several options, I believe.
One, metropolitan~ the second, next layer of generic siting decision might be the current process where you're relatively close in to load centers, but still not metropolitan.
The next level perhaps of siting decision might be more remote siting, which I believe is a fair characterization
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reponers, Inc.
25
'37 of what the task force *is saying, and perhaps the fourth level of siting might be.very remote siting, in extremely sparsely populated areas.
I think when I read the task force report, which dwelled to a considerable extent on annuli, five, 10, 15, 20 and so forth, miles, and population criteria that was getting rather explosive, as I recollect now, something like a quarter of the regional population density in the first five miles, and maybe a third or a half, I forget the exact numbers now, but there is a large number of criteria being suggested, both in annuli and also in various sectors, that made me a littie bit concerned that we are more focusing on how we go about determining the population density and distribution than we were the principle of more remote siting.
I felt also that in focusing on population density and distribution at some detail, one might forget the fact that we also need other -- need to consider other resources or other factors in siting, such as land use and population -- land use, water use, and a number of other NEPA considerations.
So I guess my differing opinion was not really dissent in the basic thrust of the task~force report, but more one of let's not too hastily develop the criteria, let's make sure that in whatever criteria we develop, that we accomplish, one, the objective of more remote siting, but, two
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 38 we make sure that we have water arid land resources available within the region and sufficient and diverse resources still left over that you can make some -- that your NEPA analysis does not disappear, that you have some diverse resources available and you can make siting decisions through the NEPA process and still accomplish your goal of more remote siting, if I'm making myself relatively clear.
When you focus too much on just population distribution and criteria of this nature, you could do one of two things:
You could actually have a situation where you could be more remote than if you followed these rote and criteria.
You could be even further remote from population centers and still have siting options in the NEPA sense.
Or you could have a situation where you'ave analyzed yourself into the situation where there's -- you can't go any place and find water 0r iliand or whatever, to be able to site.
So my only caution was let's not worry too much about the exact population criteria right now.
I think maybe what you really need is a determination, and I think the energy center survey of three and a half years ago or so was a useful resource in this area.
I think you need a study showing how remote you can go from population and still have resources available in which to site.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
.e 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 39 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Questions or comments?
MR. MULLER:
Let me go back to recommendation No. 6 on pag~ 58 and 59 of the report.
This is the reco~.roendation that states:* in the current approach. to site selection from a safety viewpoint, let's select sites that have no unfavorable characteristics requiring NEPA unusual design to compensate.
In the middle of page 58, there are -- there is a summary of two members, two task force members disagreeing with the way the particular recommendation came out.
One of those members happens to be me.
I felt that at the time there was still some validity of including the some safety c.onsiderations in the -- some safety aspects of the site in the same context that we had reviewed -- we do review new alternative sites under NEPA.
In my experience I found that the NEPA process is a fairly useful way of finding sites that are among the best or to optimize sites, and I felt that based on some general level of safety information, it would still be of value to consider these needs, this information, in such a way to optimize the site, both from environmental as well as a safety point of view.
And I felt one could do this by using reconnaisance level information.
Now the task force majority disagreed with that, and we went with the recommendation that's mrldicated here.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace--ral Reporters, Inc.
25 40 But this member* of the task force still isn't persuaded.*
I guess finally on the bottom of page 58, there is a number -- now you also gave another counterargument.
MR. ERNST:
Well, I guess I sort of felt the task force position on this was reasonably moderate and when I saw a differing opinion saying we should consider this, I felt like I should have another differing opinion which really indicates in my view such. a proc.ess is just technically very difficult to achieve, perhaps could not be done on the basis of reconnaisance level information, and really the NEPA decisional process just would come to a standstill if you did indeed state that residual risk should be considered on a site-by-site basis on the alternative site process.
MR. MULLER:
We argued these back and forth at some length during the various meetings that we had.
There were, on the bottom of page 65, page 66 and 67 --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Dan, can I ask whether you all in the context of the point you were just making, have found that the studies now emanating from CEO and other places to have an influence on your considerations at all?
MR. MULLER: - You mean the new CE0 regulations?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, no, I'm sorry, not the regulations, the study on potential consequences of out to greater distances and greater magnitudes than I guess we
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-ral Reporters, Inc.
25 41 normally consider.
Is that something that, obviously you didn't review them in connec'tion to this paper -*- would it be useful: for you to meet again to review the recommendations you made in the context of that report?
MR. MULLER:
I'm not familiar with the report.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I am not terribly familiar with it, either. It's specific to TMI, but I think CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think it would add much.
There have always been what I' 11.call "single shot" studies, the kind that say if we release X curies of iodine from the reactor located at Y, and I search for the worst, you know, for meteorological conditions which at least under the simplifying assumption of my calculational procedures carry the effects of furthest distances, what do I get, and the answer is you can get appreciable doses out at the 100-mile and more range, but those also are calculations that don't place the originating events or the meteorological conditions in any sort of a context of the spectrum of originating events in the reasonable spectrum of meteorological conditions and what the likelihoods are, and so on.
And so you find that these one-shot sorts of calculations always correspond to some point out on the outer tail of an accident consequence cit"istribution, and generally the policy-making has been that more -- you know, not necessarily the center of gravity of the distribution, but not to try to include everything that's
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace eral Reporters, Inc.
25 42 physically possible, and I think --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah, I understand that.
What's concerning me is that if we're in the process of coming out with a revised siting policy, others have come out with studies that could have some impact on our siting policy, it seems to me it might be just as well to have taken explicit account of those studies, even if for no other reason than to be able. to say clearly why we didn't take actual account of it in the policy.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One can.always take account of it up to some point and then you have to decide whether the rate of occurrence of these things is sufficiently rapid so that you're never going to be able to complete anything if you always want to have the last one published, and other studies of this ilk have gone on for 20 years, of calculations, estimates MR. MULLER:
Also, though, if we were to calculate or develop some sort of a revision to Part 100, the first thing we'd have to do would be develop a technical basis for whatever revision, whatever numbers we have come up with, and I'm sure you would look and review any sort of relevant information that would be available at that time which would include this.
Certainly we'd see if there's anything in it that would be useful.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Of course, when we got ready to
I
- 2 3
4 s
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Repo"ers, Inc.
25
(
43 go finally with the rule, why, there'd then be the Smith and Jones report which had just come out, you know.
You're always going to be -- the question is whether you can gather the last one into the reference list.
MR. GOSSICK:
We are lo.eking at that,*s.tudy,
- I believ,
though, in connection with the E&O panel that's been establishe.
Peterson and those guys are taking a look at it.
there?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That puzzled you, too?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As to how it would fit in COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yeah.
Since it's a theoretical --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I've pressed the limits of my knowledge on that study.
CHAI RMA.i'\\J BEND RI E :
I thi~k Frank's got stock in a potassium iodide factory, frankly.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But it isn't even Frank's report, and he was the technical adviser to it.
The other guy was the author.
MR. MULLER:
Cindy, move to slide 18, please.
[Slide.]
There was one member of the working group had two additional recommendations.
One we already -- the first we already discussed.
This is primarily the disclosure -- well,
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace-rel Reporters, Inc.
25 44 it's primarily using the consequences of Class 9 accidents in specific siting.calculations, and then providing for a full disclo~mre of these risks.
I think we discussed this at some length already, and the working group member is not here.
Somehow he's left.
The second recommendation by the.working group is that -- is relative to. factoring in meteorological consideratio s in our siting, and in effect it says don't put a large population center upwind of a nuclear power plant. It's avoiding the targeting or aiming --
MR. MOORE:
That was downwind.
MR. MULLER:
Downwind?
I'm sorry.
I was backwards.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE!
I was going to say, I'm not sure you would want one upwind, necessarily --
,[,Laughter.]
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would say often it's easier to site the plant than it is the *population centers, presuming they already exist.
MR. MULLER:
Well, it is the question of aiming the effluent from the plant if there were an ac.cident at a population center, and the point is to -- this person felt that there should be a recommendation that would avoid that.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't understand your third reason for the task force position for not endorsing it, because your third reason seems to be that it shouldn't becaus
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-al Reporters, Inc.
25 45 it reintroduces the concept of a dose as a criterion.
You had
- just pointed out in No. 6 that **there were unique characteristic of a site, you wouldn't want to site there--
Now why isn't unique characteri$tic a steady wind pattern blowing directly down onto a.population?
MR. MULLER:
I guess we really hadn't contemplated the steady wind pattern as a unique site characteristic.
We were looking more towards things that would actually require physical changes and unusual design features in a plant.
But, you know, you make a point.
I think there is some validity in the point.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How much -- what does the wind-rose have to look like before you declare some places downwind from the site, or as not downwind from the site?
MR. MULLER:
I think you'd have to show the typical windroses are fairly homogenous, although there's often some some preferential direction, I would think it would have to be more than -- considerably more than that.
It would have to be a -- I don't know, I don't want to chance a figure, but.it would have to be some substantial amount of time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There aren't very many places where you get all the area and a windrose on one side of it.
MR. MULLER:
I notice Earl Marquis is sitting there in the back.
Do you want to add anything to this, being the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 46 only meteorologist in the whole room?
MR. MARQUIS:
I'd like to make one comment.
I go along with Mr. Hulman's viewpoint that meteorology should be included in this, but when you take the consideration of say a typical valley situation, there the population which can be distributed along the valley is distributed along the prevailing wind flow, and you have other similar type wind situations existing in nature, so that says to us that there could be some significant correlations between the wind flow and the population distribution, which could lead to, if you would consider uniform windrose, it would certainly give you some perspective on it.
On a windrose, you would see in the maximum directions at a normal site something like 8 to 10 percent of the time in the prevailing direction with some directions going down to 1 to 2 percent of the time and, however, when you hit a valley situation, then you end up with 10 to 15 percent of the winds flowing in the prevailing direction and, of course, the crosswind, cross-valley flow could be only a few percent.
So, therefore, you are getting a bias of possibly up to a factor of 10 at some sites, and this is the reason for the concern.
MR. MULLER:
The next item I'd like to cover briefly is the issues involved in the Heard petition on
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace.rel Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 47 population.density. *The petition Cindy.
yeah,* this* is slide 19,
[Slide.]
The Heard petition proposed that the Commission include in its rates upper limit population density criteria,
- and then also minimum exclusion radius, radii~ arid low population zone distances.
Our feeling is that if we were to develop revised regulations along the lines recommended by the task force, that all of the elements of the Heard petition, albeit not the specific numbers, but all of the elements of the Heard petition would be included in some revision to Part 100 along the lines that we propose.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Does that include the issue of the transients?
I thought there was still a major disagreement on the mechanism of handling the population.
MR. MULLER:
Yeah, go ahead, Craig.
VOICE:
The transients would have to be taken care of in developing regulations*or numerical criteria to the population.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
My point was that in responding to Dan's that all of the points would have been taken in by the task force, I thought there was a fundamental difference, though, in what the way they were proposing transients be included and the task force's weighted
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace--*a1 Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 approach *
- MR. MULLER:
They were proposing that all
- transients be counted fu11*as a full person.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
48 MR. MULLER:
I gues.s what I was really saying is we've -- the task force recommendations accommodate all of the issues raised ln the Heard petition.
Cover all of the points --
COMMISSIONER-AHEARNE:
Address all the points.
MR. MULLER:
Address all the points, yes.
But, indeed, they've proposed certain fixed distanc s md certain fixed population densities which we may or may not agree with.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The impression that I'd had was that it was -- one of the fundamental differences of the others were smaller, that there was MR. MULLER:
I think, yes, I would agree with yo.u, I think this is a much more substantial disagreement, particularly in an area like Seabrook where there was quite a large transient population.
Other sites, of course, don't have the problem at all.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the calculation difference between the approach which you are proposing which is a weighted average and counting them as full persons?
How
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace ral Reporters, Inc.
25 49 does it work?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You get a whale of a lot more population.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yeah.
A whale of a lot is how much more?
Three times?
Four.times?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Every transient*counts 100 times as much.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In a cot:!,ple of cases it could be somewhere around 300.
They'd have very high populatio densities. It's like a big holiday once or twice a year.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
July 4th and Labor Day.
MR. MULLER:
Or more typically a beach area, where you have this high population density for perhaps two months a year, so now it's a factor of six to 12 or something of that sort.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you're still --
you know, your order of magnitude COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It slides back.
MR. MULLER:
It's like that, yes, sir.
More typically, it would be six to 12, except in some unusual circumstances.
The final item I'd like to touch on briefly is the request by the Commission that we look into the use of risk assessment by other federal agencies.
That's slide 22.
I * -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace-**al Reporters, Inc.
25 50
[Slide.]
And basically the Staff found -- the Staff did do a survey. of a number of other federal agencies and.also some state agencies.
The Staff found that there's no generally accepted methodology for defining an acceptable.level of risk amongst the agencies that were covered, and I think the --
our finding is, too, that probably the Commission -- this Commission -- is in the forefront of a number of other federal agencies in the use of thinking about risk assessment.
Let me go on to slide 23 briefly.
[Slide.]
This is that the NRC does lead other federal agenci s in risk assessment, and then I've picked three agencies that do use risk assessment:
the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, the FAA, and HUD.
And these use risk assessment in somewhat different ways.
The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council has a no undue risk criterion, and their risk analysis is somewhat related to the risk posed by coal-fired plants.
The FAA uses risk analysis to establish whether or not to spend money on improvements in airports.
And finally, HUD uses risk assessment for esuaTulish'ng some separation distances between HUD projects and other hazardous activities, and their range of risk is in the order of 10-4 times 10-2, 10-7.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 51 But I think in summary we are probably as well off as any other federal or other agency in the use of risk assessment.
The final part of the presentation, if the Commission wants me to go ahead with it, would be to talk
(.
about how we would intend to implement all these recommendation..
CHAIIDII.AN HENDRIE:
Could you outline it and let us see where the discussion carries us.
MR. MULLER:
I've asked Mr. Moore to jump into the fray at this moment.
MR. MOORE:
Cindy, slide 24, please.
[Slide.]
A quick rundown here of what the major tasks are.
A lot of this is establishing numerica~ values and bases for the *population criteria.
Another, the second one, is to develop performance criteria for the engineered safety features.
This was necessitated by taking the dose calculation out of the siting review, and so it's got to go back into the design review.
Next one is establishing the numerical values and the bases for these for the stand-off distances from offsite hazards.
The next is just to develop the revised regulations to implement recommendations 1 through 8.
And the last one is to do the study that does
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace*
rel Reporters, Inc.
25 52 involve the regulations. 'That's the comparative margins in
- the various ologies and disciplines.
Next slide,. please, 2 5.
[Slide.]
First task*I've set out is one that involves the population density.
The biggest.effort there, I think, is to look.at the effect of population density and distribution on conse-quences of Class~ accidents.
Since we truly expect that in some of those areas, there are going to be this won't be really determinative, that there'll be sort of a linear sort of thing that the lower the population, the lower the risk, we do feel it is necessary to look at*the effect of population density criteria on the availability of sites.
And this isn't just what percentage of the ground area do you wipe out, but whether you wipe out sites that have water and are really suitable sites.
The next is -- also there is some effort in researc to look into what is an acceptable risk.
I don't think we're hanging our hats:. on having the world agree on whether --
what is an acceptable risk, but we'll see where that stands at the time, and then come to point 3 of taking all of this and really trying to ma.ke a judgment as to what population density numbers to recommend go into the regulations.
And the last is to -- I mentioned on the early
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 AceWliral Reporters, Inc.
25 53 slide -- develop a performance criteria for the engineered safety features.
I've got estimated manyears there.
Cindy, slide 26, please.
\\
[Slide.]
The other tasks, very quickly, are task*2 is developing the numerical values for t_he stand-off distances, I figured about a manyear would be required there.
Okay, task 3 -- okay, I guess we're doing the same tning on~- I believe I threw task 3 into task 1 before and hav already discussed it.
Task 4 is to prepare the draft revisions to Part 100 and Part 51 and Part 50 that are implicit in all of the recommendations, and then tn,e last task is this common basis for comparing the risk of all external hazards.
Cindy, slide 27, which is my last one.
[Slide.]
Here I just totaled the numbers I had before, but I've done it -- if it were determined that we would implement the recommendations of the siting policy task force, and that's about 9 and a half manyears, or if we just implement those that would be required to take care of the authorization bill amendment, if that were to pass, that would take seven years, because that didn't cover all the areas.
That essentially covered the demography and, of course, didn't J
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A
24 Ace---al Reporters, Inc.
25 I
54 cover the one that doesn't involve regulation.
So our estimate* is either nine and a half years, manyears, or seven manyears.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are any of these resources that you have?
priorities.
MR. MOORE:
I would say not.
I think --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would require changing MR. MULLER:
We have the type of people available that could do it, but --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, what I meant was currently are they oriented towards meeting those kinds of tasks?
MR. MULLER:
No, they are not.
We don't*have nine people waiting.
Well, this concludes my presentation.
May I make just one comment for the record?
This thing has been going on for about a year, and Mr. Miller is the deputy director of this whole task force effort, and there are two types of deputies:
one who sits around and hopes that the director doesn't get sick and he'll have to pick it up, and the other kind -- the other type of person that really steps in as a partner and works, and I'm really I want to say thank you to Mr. Miller for being the partner type of person.
2 3
4 5
. 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace--al R~porters, Inc.
25 55 On the other side I have a great project manager in Jan Norris who tied this whole thing together and really worked. hard.
people.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So these are the responsible
[Laughter.]
MR. MULLER:
Now you got it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We add our thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. Remind me before I let you go about Appendix A.
Are we ever going to get -- have we gotten -
neglected it? Are we going to get a.rewrite on Appendix A?
MR. MULLER:
I think you have a Commission paper.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
WelL it seems -- I recall a paper which discussed the background and complexities of the subject, but I already knew the background and complexities of the subject.
MR. MULLER:
I don't believe you have one with the recommendations in it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are we ever going to get the OBE out of there controlling the design?
VOICE:
Some time at some considerable date, as you recall, at some part of the budget proceedings, it was decided to postpone that activity for a period like two or three years on the basis that we have an adequate regulation
I
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-rel Reporters, Inc.
25 56 in place and that it is unlikely that there will be any number of new applications coming in during that period of time.
So as a matter of pr~orities, that effort has essentially been postponed.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]