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