ML20147J151
| ML20147J151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147J156 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812270475 | |
| Download: ML20147J151 (52) | |
Text
. - ~-
[
N' W.
GRIB!ng 1
MUCLI AR RIGULATO RY COMMIS51oN -
(
i IP6 THE MATTER OF:
l PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF POLICY STATEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE SkTE EVALUATION UNDER NEPA FOR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS
(
Plees -
Washington, D. C.
D ate -
Tuesday, 12 December 1978 Pages 1 - 51 Teleshener
(
(*A21347 3700 415 ACE -MER.H. RDOIMES, EC.
181gg70 444 North Capnoi Street A
Washirgen..D.C. ;C00' W
,7 NATICMW1CE CCVEAGE CAILY
-o
-a c,R1.7 65 1
e e
\\
\\
=
s*
- e
- d DISC 1. AIMER -
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 12 December 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, H. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. The transcript is intended solely for general informa'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal l
record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final de' terminations or 4
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.
I e
t 0
e P4m e 3
_._w.,
q
_.2.
c j
2 l
' /7LT -
CRF&9-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
i i
DD:mp j
AR'
-i 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
'l l
~
4 3
l l
t PUBLIC MEETING i
i t
4 i
DISCUSSION'OF POLICY STATEMENT ON ALTERNATIVE SITE 5
EVALUATION UNDER NEPA FOR NUCLEAR 6
r GENERATING STATIONS l
7 i
8 Room 1130
?
-9 l'il7 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
j 10 Tuesday, 12 December 1978 11 j
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:50 a.m.
i l
12 l
SEFORE:
13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman
-l 14 l
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 15
}
RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Comraissioner 18 PRESENT-19 l
l Messrs. Denton, Ernst, Gossick, Kelley, Pedersen, Sege, t
20 Shapar, Smith, and Spangler f-i t
21 i
l 22
)
23 24 n.ic i
25
[
i
(
i
s l
3 jodl 3
1785 i
EEEEEEEEEEE 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we come to order.
3 We will turn to the next subject on the agenda this 4
morning, which is a continuation of the discussion of 5
alternative site evaluations under NEPA.
6 The Commission had a meeting and got part way 7
through the Staff brieing and sicsussions of this subject.
I guess that was on the 7ch of December.
8 9
There appeared to be various options at hand at that 10 point.
)
You will recall that there is a paper, - 163 (a), which 12 contains a proposed Commission policy statement on I3 alternative site evaluations; that there is a paper,163 (b),
I#
which deals with a number of issues pertinent to alternative 15 site evaluations.
It looked as though one could issue these documents f
0 I7 suitably framed as Staff documents, or one of them could be a I
proposed Commission policy statement and the other a Staff i
18 19 document; or one could move on to rulemaking, since that j
1 20 presumably would be the ultimate goal of these endeavors, 21 anyway.
22 When we stopped the discussion last time, there was still a good deal to be said pro and con.
23 24 f
4.e.Federst Reporters, Inc.
i' 25 and has some modifiations to make.
i
..,, _.,..... ~,,, -. _ -....
i i
jon 4
{
I 1
Our aim today is to hear those, to have some 1
2l opportunity to look at the various issues which were raised in 3!
the (b) paper and which Mal Ernst was beginning to go througn i
t i,
4 when we had to close last time.
l 5
There were some comments by OPE on the paper.
l 6!
Today's discussions will also, hopefully, give us a 7
chance to work those in and understand htose; and it seems to 8
me, Howard, even your section had some comments to make on this 9
MR. SHAPAR:
I think the Staff's new views might meld l
10 1 someof these.
l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Why don't I welcome Lee t
12 and the Staff to the table and ask him to go ahead and i
13 introduce the players and get on with the presentation.
14 MR. GOSSICK:
Okay, Mr. Chairman.
I 15 t me ask Ray Smith to sort of outline for you what t:
16 has happened since the 7th when we met on this subject, and 17 !
to indicate what we are proposing now be authorized in the way>
18 of Staff action.
19 Ray, go ahead.
i 20 MR. SMITH:
Okay.
l 21 The first viewgraph -- and you have handouts that 22 give this -- tell what we have done since last Thursday.
23 (Slide.)
24 Taking a cue from that discussion we had here, we w sw neponm. inc. j 25 have scurried around and created a NUREG report; we, as the
i jon-5 I
Stiaf f, primarily NRR.
2 The NUREG report consists of '.:he policy statement 3l which you saw revised to be a Staff document instead of a I
4 policy statement.
5 It includes the --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does that mean you have 7
already put it out?
8 MR. SMITH:
No.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But it is a good question.
This 10 I is a very fast-draw operation when it comes to a NUREG.
11 MR. SMITH:
On my second viewgraph I will get to 12 what we intend to do.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Subject to our 1pproval?
l#
MR. SMITH:
Subject to your approval, I will tell you i
on the second viewgraph that we are going to issue it subjecc f
i 16 to your approval.
I (Slide. )
I 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Plunge forward, i
l 19 You don't want the second viewgraph, do you?
MR. SMITH:
No.
(Laugther. )
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Good.
23 MR. SMITH:
Appendix A is the revised information j
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
saw, but it is part of the NUREG now.
jon 6
I We put an Appendix B in, which included the 2
dif fering Staf f view which was the appendix to your earlier 3
paper.
4 The person with the differing view wanted to make l
5 sure the public had an opportunity to see that.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Appendix A is what used to 7
be B?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
9 MR. SMITH:
Staf f Paper 163 (b) is basically 10 I Appendix A now.
11 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems innocent enough, but i
12 there may have been an underlying intent to confuse.
13 MR. SMITH:
There's also a preface which explains 14 the whole deal.
15 We modified the words on the footnote that was 16 giving OPE so many problems to clarify what we really mean.
j 17 We talk about site superiority and measurably small 18 differences.
He modified that somewhat.
}
l 19 COfiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are going to, at some 20 stage, let us see this document you are talking about?
21 MR. SMITH:
If you would like, yes.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There seems to be a throat there.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let's think about this thing. !
24 This is a Staff document you are talking about?
Am Feeral Reponen, lm.
25 MR. SMITH:
This is a Staff document.
He have a l
i
jon 7
I Federal Register notice we are preparing.
2 COMMISSIONER ITNNEDY:
As we see the document, we 3
should see it in that light and not write it, is my point.
j I think that's correct in normal parlance.
l 5
MR. ERNST:
The word " policy" does not appear 6
anywhere in the' document at all.
7 COMMISSIONEli htNNEDY:
We should not so address the 8
document as to make it something that it is not, is my point; 9
okay?
j 10 MR. SMITH:
Right.
II Now I think I need the second viewgraph.
12 (Slide.)
13 Our intention is to issue the document for public Id comment'unless the Commission objects.
15 If you would like to see the document, we will run 16 it through you; but we did not intend to do so because it is going to be issued as a Staf f document under the signature of I7 l
18 I
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You notice the word is 20 andl "through" rather than "by."
21
)2 MR. ERNST:
There's one critical point that should be 22 made, and that is it is a supplement to a NUREG that has 23 already gone forward on the rulemaking paper.
24 This would come out as a supplement to that to b Focer:A Reporters, Inc.
25 provide other information for the public so they can better i
l i
8
@on 1
comment on the rulemaking paper.
I 2
CHAIRIUW IE10DRIE:
Elaborate a little on the base l
3l NUREG.
4 MR. ERNST:
The base NUREG is one the Commission l
5 affirmed a month or so ago on 10 issues that might be 6
considered for future rulemaking.
They went out for public 7
comment.
8 Alternative sites was one of those issues.
9 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
When was that issued for I
10 public comment?
II MR. ERNST:
It will be in the Federal Register the 12 14th of this month.
13 The NUREG is ready to go on the 14th also.
Id This is being advertised as a supplement to that 15 NUREG.
I 16 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
It is one of the 10 areas?
{
17 MR. ERNST:
That's right.
Would have the same l
18 expiration date for comment, namely February 12, as the basic I
l9 485 paper.
20 MR. SliITil:
Okay.
Wethinkifwedoitthiswayandl get it out early for public comment, we will get an earlier 21 22 start on the rulemaking effort.
23 We do intend to continue with the rulemaking effort !
24 expedited and try very hard to meet and even beat the schedule, 4m-FewW Reorun, lm. g 25 '
we put forth in the information paper which you had before, I
l i
9 jon -
1 namely proposed rule out in June and effective rule out in 2
December of next year.
3 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The rule would cover what?
{
4 MR. SMITH:
TLe rule would cover all of the issues 5
that show up in the public comments as well as the issues in 6
the alternate site paper which you have.
7 Whatever rulemaking --
j 8
CHAIFWUW HENDRIE:
This is the alternate site rule; 9
not the other nine issuec?
10 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's what I was asking.
11 MR. SMITH:
I guess a fairly comprehensive rule on 12 the alternatie site question.
The content is not jelled yet 13 1
because we don't know the extent of the comments we are going 14 to get from the public or the extent of the comments we are going to get from you folks.
16 New, what we propose to do now is to have Mal Ernst 17 i
continue with his discussion of the substantive issues an6 i
18 get whatever feedback we can f rom the Commissicn on those i
i 19 issues to be used in the development of the rule, the proposed 20 i
rule.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You commented you had, you 22 believed, taken care of OPE's concerns?
23 MR. SMTTH:
Yes.
24 Ace Focor:4 Reporters, Inc.
MR. PEDERSON:
With regard to the treatment of what 25 was A and B, we have talked fairly closely with them.
I think, l
jon-10 I
what.we are doing is in line with what was suggested, 2
particularly the alternative B, which was tihe preferred 3
alternative to go out and get comment on the issues.
3 4
COfiMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With respect to that footnote?
5 MR. PEDERSON:
Yes.
The clarification they made 6
largely overcomes our concern.
[
7 COMMISSIONLR GILINSKY:
What is the advantage of j
8 putting out this policy statement?
Is it dealing directly l
t 9
with the various issues?-
.f 10 MR.' SMITH:
We hope it focuses the public comment II we get on the issues we need for rulemaking.
12 It lets the public know sort of the direction we are 13 thinking ~and gets the public into the ballpark of where we are I#
trying to make decisions.
15 MR. SHAPAR:
Exposes the Staff's preliminary thinkinci, 16 identifies the issues the way the Staff seems them now; which i
I7' should make it easier for someone commenting on this subject to' focus in on areas of interest.
18 s
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At least they could start i
20 from our starting point.
2I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And avoids deciding in advance' 22 what the policy should be?
tiR. ERNST:
The issues have several alternatives l
23 24 typically in a range of rational alternatives.
Am Fscerol Reporters, Inc.
25 We aren't prejudicing any alternative we might choose j
-l
con 11 I
at the end.
2 MR. PEDERSON:
I think also the policy statement 3
helps you see hev these issues. fit together.
It provides the 4
framework that should be commented on.
5 MR.-SMITH:
Let me make sure you understand.
6 It has been scrubbed very carefully so.it is no 7
longer a policy statement.
It doesn't pretned to be Commission 8
views.
It is a Staff document on the issues to be considered.
9 What's the name of the NUREG?
10 MR. SRNST:
General Considerations, it is being II called now.
12 The name of the NUREG -- this is what it looks like.
13 It is called General Considerations and Issues of Significance.
Id You don't have that?
IS I have a couple of copie:s here left over.
M What that is is the title page and table of contents l I7 of what the NUREG would look like.
1 Basically it has a preface that sets the stage for i
18 I9 what the document la all about.
i 20 The body would be the revdsed appendix -- or Part A 21 of the Commissioner paper which would be called General 22 Considerations;. Appendix A would then be the Part B of the 1
23 Commission paper which is the issues of eignificance.
24 As Ray pointed out, Appendix B to this would be l
p-Federed Caporters, Inc.
i 25 an alternate Staff viewpoint on Commission criteria.
l l
1 Son 12 I
I want to iterate this would in no way slow up the i
2 rulemaking process.
l i
3 We feel it would be helpful to focus public comment.
4 The comment period would expire at the same time as the 485 5
comment period.
6 There is no way it will slow up the rulemaking.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it has a reasonable shape 8
to it now and avoids that peculiar aspect it had last time of 9
the Commission saying "Here is a proposed policy statement; 10 we would like your commant on it.
What we intend to do Il eventually is move to rulemaking, but we thought we would try 12 a policy statement first."
13 Here is a way to call up public comment.
Id It is clear enough from the document, I think, where!
I 15 the Staff's view at the moment is as to the direction you would l
be moving to.
l 16 l
17 That would indeed help focus attention.
18 COf2tISSIONER BRADFORD:
What would you make of all l
l l9 this if you were a member of the public trying to focus your 20 attention on the NRC's policy on alternative sites and you 21 didn't want to go through participation in a rulemaking, 1
22 commenting on two or three different things?
l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We assum e the knowledgeable l
t 24 l
public participant, I guess.
a-Facerj Re: orters, Inc, l
i 25
~
What is recogni::able is that the way to have i
t
jon 13 1
influence is to get in early.
I i
2 People will perceive that there will be a draft rule l 3
which will be debated, and them some modified version of it 4
put out for comment in due time.
5 The way to have an influence on chat draft rule is 6
to come into the Staff now.
That's the way I would read it.
7 MR. SHAPAR:
1, might be viewed as an extra step.
8 If they want to follow the process right through, they could 9
take advantage of it or not, as they saw fit.
10 Meanwhile, en Commission's last word on the subject 11 would be Seabrook.
f 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORC:
Would be what?
13 MR. SHAPAR:
SeC? rook.
l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought you said secret.
i 15 MR. SHAPAR:
There would be no intermediate policy i
16 statement from the Commission since Seabrook.
l 17 This is an added opportunity for input if they want ind2 18 to take advantage of it.
- 3 19 MR. ERNST:
I think Staff would retain the option, if l
20 itlookeduseful,tohavingaworkshoppriortoaproposedrule,l 21 if it would help understand the comments.
L This could identify the types of people or the l
23 individuals that might usefully participate.
I i
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You also have, or someone has Am-Federal 7.opo,wrs, Inc.
25 '
out for comment the environmental standard review plan, and in' 1
i
jon 14 1
1 what way are the comments on that mentioned in this, which has 2
alternative site sections in it?
3 MR. ERNST:
I don't know what the status is of that l
I l
4 particular section, the standard review plans.
l 5
I think we are holding up that particular section 6
until we have some resolution of this; but I am not sure.
7 MR. DENTON:
That's correct.
TUis was the last one 8
of the standard review plans to be issued for comment.
9 There certainly would be a close interaction between 10 cur ultimate views here.
The current version is written to 11 supplement the Seabrook type decision.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You went out for comment on 13 that section.
You have received comments?
14 MR. DENTON:
I am sure we have.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you inted to then -- I l
16 guess my real question is: is that something that is also l
17 being processed through or will you put those comments aside I
18 and that action aside and then, as a result of this procedure o'n l
19 this rulemaking, plan a reworking of that standard review plan?
20 MR. DENTON:
I think it would be our plan -- we can 21 relook at it -- but we had planned to go ahead and issue all 22 the environmental standard review plans in a final version in l
23 one batch and treat them as we do the safety ones, as things 24 evolve; issue revised standard review plans.
Ace.Fecwal Recorters, inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that it is --
l i
l i
n
j on'15 l
1 MR. DENTON:
So that the plan that's out is 2
implementing the current Commission policy in this regard.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You might end up then issuing i 4
a final standard review plan that would be dif ferent. than 5
what this proceeding will lead to and then you will redo that?
6 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What relationship does this 8
action have with respect to the PIRG petition?
9 MR. SMITH:
I don't think it has any.
I 10 1 CHAIPRAN HENDRIE:
Which one?
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, there's one on --
12 MR. SMITH:
Population density?
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
Which has to do in a way 14 to some sets of the criteria that you apply.
15 Is there any relationship?
4 16 '
MR. SMITH:
Well, there may be along the linet but l
17 not a primary.
18 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Jim?
i I
19 MR. KELLEY:
Does the alternate site paper focus much l
20 on population at all as a factor?
l I
21 MR. ERNST:
No, it doesn't.
It specifically j
t 22 identifies it as one parameter that might need to be 23 considered.
2#
MR. KELLEY:
As I recall, I think there may be some Am.Fems Amorms, lm.
}
25 overlap, but many of the papers are up here now for the f
jon 16 l
I meeting next week.
2 MR. PEDERSON:
Your office and my office.
3 MR. SEGE:
There's one rather specific tie between j
4 the two papers.
In the Staff's proposal on the PIRG petition, 5
if the population density exceeds a particular volume, then 6
there is an increased emphasis.
7 So in that limited respect, there is a relationship.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought also part of the 9
PIRG issue was do we put into rules what we do in practice?
10 This seemed to be a question we were now asking here.
II It is a combination of should we be adjusting our practice or 12 adjusting our rules; so it would seem to.ae the're was a I3 relationship.
I4 Maybe not.
15 MR. SMITH:
Mhatever relationship there is, there 16 will be time in the rulemaking process to workin whatever is 17 decided on PIRG.
I MR. ERNST:
It is not a strong relationship between IO I'
the two papers.
Certainly population is a factor that 20 enters into alternative site comparisons.
21 Exactly h;u remains to be seen.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Should we go forward with the 23 discussion?
24 we-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. ERNST:
All right.
The thrust of discussion thisi
jon*
17 I
morning will be not quite what it started out to be last week.
2 (Slide.)
I 3l Youhave before you a different set of viewgraphs.
l 4
We will try to now -- time permitting -- to go through as much 5
of the information paper as possible for a verbal discussion 6
of the contents and considerations.
7 It seems, first, that there are some definitions 8
that might be worthwhile to go through very quickly.
9 (Slide. )
10 I There are a number of definitions in the paper.
I II have selected a few for understanding.
12 The first being reconnaissance level information.
I3 The Staff defines reconnaissance level as essentially Id that type of information that exists at the present time that 15 isavailabletotheNRCandtotheApplicantandtothepublicl l
16 from various sources for their consideration.
17 While it does not preclude very short, on-site kinds!
i of specific examinations or walk-throughs of the site, orthinds 18 i
I9 of this nature, basically it doesnot include detailed site 20 specific examinations like borings, studies of this species, 2I things of that nature.
22 The site in this paper is considered to be including 23 not only the facility, but also the transmission lines; general l
regional interactions that might take place either through t
(co Federsi Reporters, Inc.
4 25 in-migrations of workers or effluents; things of that nature.
l
\\
1
- jon, 18 -19 l
The site is somewhat larger than the facility 2
boundary.
3 The term " environmentally preferred alternative site" 4
is one.that basically has its origin, I think, in Midland; and 5
basically tries to differentiate between environmental factors, 6
including social. impact, as opposed to economic f' actors of 7
plant construction and things of that nature.
8 So when we talk about environmentally preferred, we 9
are talking about noneconomic aspects of the environment; 10 but including social disruption, cultural effects, aesthetics, Il
@3 things of that nature.
- 4 I2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would also. include in 13 some way safety considerations?
Population density, for Id example?
Or not?
15 MR. ERNST:
Population, I think, enters in'several 16 ways.
One possibility is the accident considerat ons.
The I7 othe rway population enters in is the impacts of in-migrating 18 workers, the ability of services to keep up with these people, I9 the availability of a worker --
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
TUere are safety-related 21 concerns under the heading of environmental?
22 MR. ERNST:
There could be.
I think th. is a 23 matter that does need consideration.
24 When we use the term "obviously superior," it is in i
DFederal Reporters, Inc.
25
- the Seabrook context.
That is, that's the point where you i
I
- +
fjon 20 t
i I
start considering economics as well as the purely environmental l
2 I
factors.
L 3
I guess, in accordance with Seabrook, there are two j
l 5
4 steps to that.: one is to see whether there is an environmentally 5
superior alternative, not considering forward costs, sump 6
costs, or delays; the second would be to see whether this i
7 obviously superior. alternative would still be there if one did -
i 8
consider in some manner forward costs.
9 We also have a term of " resource area" that is used l
i 10 !
in the report.
Basically this concept is a reasonably 11 homogeneous area that has rather similar characteristics from i
12 the standpoint of, oh, maybe geology, water availability, or l
13 aquatic species, things ~of that nature.
I#
MR. KELLEY:
When you say "obviously superior," do 15 you mean substantially superior or slightly or clearly-superior?
MR. ERNST:
1.think I have to defer'on that.
I I7 MR. KELLEY:
I just wondered.
)
i 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think he is using it with l
19 quotation. marks around it.
20 MR. ERNST:
I think it is clear that the magnitude of impact is a determinant and obviously. superior as to how 21 J
B 22 great the magnitude is, is, I think, a question that is before 23 the Commission at present.
f 24
\\
The study already has'several premises.
(Slide.)
25 l,
)
- ~ - -
- ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ ' ~
" " * " ' ' ' " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~
~~ - -
$on.
21 1
\\ gain I have highlighted a few.
There are others 2
in the repoet.
3 The first premise is that the NRC cannot require the 4
Applicant to propose or select any specific alternative site.
5 A second premise of the paper is that the single 6
best site is not required by NEPA.
7 A third premise of the study is that the "obviously 8,
superior" standard is responsive to NEPA.
9 A fourth premise of importance is that candidate 10 sites should be among the best that could reasonably be found.
11 This is a Staff recommendation as to a standard as 12 opposed to a standard that exists.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Mal, am I right in thinking 14 that CEQ has recently come out with its pronouncements on how 15 to approach the alternative section of NEPA?
l l
16 MR ERNST:
I am not familiar in detail with that 17 one.
l 18 MR. KELLEY:
They recently came out.
I think the i
19 effectiveness is postponed for about six months.
20 There is a statement -- the NEPA revised procedures I
21 are now out in the Federal Register.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What I am wondering is 1
23 whether it would be well to review this effort against that i
24 one and at least have some notion of where, if at all, we are w..Fedwel Rmonm, ine, 25 in conflict with what CEQ is mandating for nonregulatory l
\\
jot 22 I
agencies.
2 MR. SilAP AR:
I would think the CEQ guidelines would 3
have to be carefully examined for all interaction and 4
applicability to this effort as it goes forward.
5 MR. SPANGLER:
May I comment on that?
6 The CEQ proposal has someof the same pitfalls in 7
te'rms of providing guidance ss NEPA itself has.
8 Counsel is saying there are very general soft policy 9
terms.
T ht's where we get into a lot of mischief.
10 We need to harden the specification so we don't 11 have this mish-mash of variability of applicants or Staff 12 practices and all of that.
13 We can't go to the extreme of hardening everything to 14 the degree we would like because of the diversity of conditions 15 within regions, between regions that is to say; but we ought i
16 to be moving more in that direction.
17 I think the thrust of the Staff effort is to try to 18 harden to a perceptible degree.
19 The CEQ doesn't get into these hardening type issues.
20 That's the shortcoming of it.
21 It is certainly something that we have to reconcile 22 our more specific guidance with.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't you move on?
24 MR. ERNST:
Basically the issues paper addresses i
dwnfedero Reporters, Inc.
25 seven issues as I mentioned last week, four of which were i
i
. ~..
jon' 23 I
identified previously by the Commission and three others were identified by the Staff in an exercise they went through to 2
3 write the paper.
The first one that is listed in the next slide, in 5
the issues paper, is the NRC's role.
6 (Slide. )
7 As I mentioned last week, we feel that the role of 8
the NRC is sort of an overlying issue as to degree of 9
independence, depth of review, things of that nature; so we 10 I feel that the NRC's role with the various subissues involve the i
11 I
degree of independence that should be exercised by the NRC, the i
12 role of EPA and the states, and the recognition that should be i
13 I
given to whatever these* agencies do.
i 14 l
The timing of review we find is an important issue 15 in the role; for example, do we look at alternative sites at the i
16 CP ceview stage, or perhaps do it more effectivelv at an i
- nd4 earlier time before there's a commitment?
- 5 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You are highlighting these as i
19 issues at this point?
You don't have a recommendation?
l l
1 20 MR. ERNST:
Highlighting them.
This is the scope 21 on this particular chart.
f 22 The scope and depth of a review versus the degree I
23 of environmental protection that is afforded by the scope and i
24 depth of a review.
w e.e-c c.wrws,inc.;
25 i (Slide. )
~
j on.
24 I
In the consideration of NRC's role, I think there are l
2 a number of things that are paramount.
One thing is that when j 3l we talk about an information base, we are not talking about 4
something uniquely available to the NRC as opposed to 5
uniquely available to the applicant or to the public.
6 Basically the information base is common; and one 7
geustion arises: that if the applicant does a good job of 8
pursuing the existing data base and analyzing it and coming 9
forth with it, it is a matter of credibility somewhat as to 10 how the Staff can demonstrate independence in the data II analysis.
12 The better the applicant does, clearly, the less the 13 Staff can do that's new.
Id Another consideration in NRC's role as mentioned I
15 before is that NRC does not select sites.
This has an f
i 16 inherent conflict between independence of review and the polich i
i 17 that the NRC does not select sites.
18 Clearly, if we go from completely independent, we i
f l9 do select sites.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As you said before, cannot 21 select a specific site.
22 MR. ERNST:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It can select a cluster of 24 alternate sites which have to be reviewed.
Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. ERNST:
I would gather the option would be open i
i
@on, 25 I
to doing a comprehensive study and saying here are a couple of 2
hundred sites that we think are good.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or five or six.
l' 4
MR. ERNST:
Or five or six.
5 MR. SHAPAR:
To the extent that the NRC rejects 6
sites, I believe it could be argued.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You could carry it to the 8
point of saying that, "We are not selecting this particular 9
site.
It is the only one we find acceptable, but it is.up to 10 you."
II MR. ERNST:
A third consideration on this issue is 12 that we cannot delegate NEPA duties.
That does not mean that 13 states or consultants cannot do analyses for us with our 14 oversight and in accordance with our criteria.
i 15 We cannot delegate our NEPA duties.
16 Out of the Seabrook review came statements about i
l 17 vigorous probing with a trained, dispassionate eye.
A i
18 realistic, hard look.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Those are separate?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I believe there are teams of 21 three.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Which go forward.
24 All members are probed vigorously, but some have 6ce-Federal Reporters, Inc. g 25 i trained eyes.
i l
26 jon COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
No.
I think the first 2
one, the first one speaks to people who either are one eyed 3
I or --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
TKat has a certain ring about 6
.it.
7 MR, GOSSICK:
We have a great deal of trouble 8
recruiting for this.
9 MR. ERNST:
In any event, the bottom line of the NRC 10 role is the manpower requirements and the degree of manpower 11 that should be put into it and its usefulness in protecting 12 the environment; but it is not just a question of usefulness and protecting the envi'ronment.
I think there is also a current question here.
15 As you will see later on, the Staff technical i
16 consensus is we can do a reasonably good job from a technical 17 standpoint of assuring that a site is good, but in some cases 18 l
this runs into credibility problems that: have we done l
19 enough in proving this has been done?
20 (Slide. )
21 The next chart gives a couple of options both on independence as well as the matter of timing.
23 One option under independence might be the minimum 24 review necessary under NEPA.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 This type of option has a couple of pros.
I l
i
- jon, 27 I
I We f eel that whatever satisfies NEPA would provide l
1 2l acceptable environmental protection and would likely provide f
I I
l flexible, feasible, and perhaps easy to apply standards.
This would have scme cons, however, because whatever 5
we do in that area would be subject to challenge and would 6
be less credible on the theory that the more you do, the more 7
credible it is that you have done a proper thing.
8 A second option is a much greater Staff involvement; 9
and I must say that as far as giving the specifics of what 10
" minimum" and "much greater" means, it is difficult to do at 11 this time; but the more you do, the higher your credibility 12 would be as an agency charged with protecting the 13 environment.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I understand you 15 correctly, Mal, your underlying point is that you believe as I
far as the requirements of the law and the adequacy of the l
16 t
17 review are concerned, the sort of minimum level is quite 18 I
adequate, but the additional effort is primarily to get l
I 19 greater credibility?
20 MR. ERNST:
I think the technical consensus of the 21 Staff in this area generally is that technically it is an 22 easier matter to determine the pluses and minuses of a 23 proposed site than what is probably required at least in the j
24 current times to prove the point.
x pe,, n,on,,,, %.
25 The judgment of the Staff has been pretty good, but i
I i
e
jon-28 I
there has been a lot of proof required; and this is more l
2[
difficult to do.
3l Normally because there are a number of reasonably l
4 good sites available that don't have anv substantial l
5 environmental impacts; and it is very difficult to diffentiate 6
usefully between them, because the cost? benefit perceptions, 7
differing values placed on different impacts, and even the 8
uncertainty of evaluating the actual impact in any event; 9
because of these uncertainties it is difficult,.if you have a 10 I slate of good sites, to really perceive differing goodnesses between them.
12 Therein I think is where the matter of credibility I3 comes in, which requires, in many cases, deeper and deeper Id d5 analyses.
15 06 MR. KELLEY:
One of the problems here is the law is l
0 so developed that you can say with great precision exactly l not I7 what the minimum requirement is under NEPA.
l 18 We can say, I' think with great confidence, in alternate i
19 site comparisons, because we now have a court decision 20 sustaining the "obviously superior" standard, for example;.but 21 it was devised pretty much on the basis of reason.
22 It is a very unsettled question.
23
.Today, to think that you could spell out a very l
24 detailed code of exactly what the minimum is, is, I think, sca FederJ Reporters, Inc.
25
'i unrea11stic.
I 1
i
'j o n' 29 I
You can get a lawyer's judgment:en whether something 2
would apply, but he is not going to be able to give you a lot l
3l of cases that say so.
MR. ERNST:
Technically we think we can develop some threshold impact levels that are representative of the typical 6
kinds of impacts you get at well-sited facilities.
7 Now, whether that kind of a threshold analysis would 8
carry in a legal sense is a debatable' question.
MR. SIIAPAR:
There have been cases where the technical approach has not worked.
The potential site is one 11 example.
12 There is a certain amount of potential between what 13 the lawyers think NEPA requires and what is the most, shall I 14 say, convenient from a technical review standpoint.
15 (Commissioner Kennedy left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
16 MR. ERNST:
The second set of options are to be 17 developed under the timing aspect; and one is a review during the construction permit phase and the second might be a review 19 of this particular question earlier, as an early site review 20 with regard to the alternative site question.
21 An early review, the pros and cons are sort of the 22 opposites of each other.
23 Thepros of an early review woul{ be reduced time 24 presCure on the Staff.
That would be some sort of a pro.
j
- DFederal Reporters, Inc.
25
)
l There would be a reduction in sump costs of that I
l
.jon
~30 t
I particular facility which would allow easier handling of 2
the difficult question of sump costs and forward costs.
3 You wouldn't have the detailed information at the 4
proposed site.and the quandry of how to handle lthat with 5
respect to the information of the candidates.
6 An early review, however, would have some cons.
7 There would be greater chances for litigation since you would 8
have something early and any new information that appears to 9
be substantive at some later time could reraise the issue 10
-again.
II There is apparently some concern about land acquisition!
12 if you do these kinds of things too early from the standpoint I3 c2 utilities.
Id COMMISF~ 7R BRADFORD:
What would be the standard 15 if the review were arlier?
16 Would you still use the sama standard?
I7 MR. ERNST:
That is one of the questions raised in the issues' paper.
The judgment is that there's been less than f
18 resounding interest in early site reviews, primarily because f
l 20 of the question of stability of the decision with an early sita-2I review.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What-does stability of 4
23 decision have to do with the standard that you use?
-24 MR. ERNST:
Well, again, if the standard which is AceJederC$ Reportets, Inc.
25 in the rules -- the general rules right now is that any new
_ _. _ _. _. _ _.. _.. ~. _. _.. -. _. _.... -.. _... _. _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _.. _,-._.. _._ _ _..
j on' 31 I
information can reraise the question as to the adequacy of the decision.
2 I
3' Under that kind of a standard, all you have to do is i
have some new information.
4 5
There is a standard in the early site review now 6
that does address not only the newness of information, but 7
also -- I forget the exact words -- but it talks about the 8
likelihood of that new information to affect the previous 9
decision, so that does --
10 I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's not the standard I 11 meant.
I meant not the standard for reopening the question 12 later, but the actual standard against which you would 13 appraise the site.
I
~
14 l Would it still be "obviously superior" or, as you i
15 move back in point of time, would you look at some other 16 formulation?
o i
17 MR. ERNST:
Okay.
There is a legal question, I l
i 18 !
guess.
l 19 It depends upon how the standard is formulated.
l 20 i The standard is formulated where one important element is an i
21 uncertainty or disparity of information available; then one 22 could aruge that the same standard should not apply earlier.
23 l I guess I personally would like to look at the l
l 24 l standard as one of confidence that the agency has made a proper osmus neoamn. im. l and that could be made up}'
25 l decision as the overriding standard; l
i I
I
$on 32.
I I
of three elements: one is disparity or uncertainty of
]
2 information; the second could be uncertainty and cost / benefit 3l balancing; and a third one could be the magnitude of impact 3
4 that would cause you to reject a site.
5 If that kind of a concept is appropriate or 6
"obviously superior," then these three factors might vary in 7
importance at different, times during the process; but the 8
overriding. concern would be a confidence that the agency has 9
made the proper decision.
10 I MR. SHAPAR:
I think another way of explaining the issue without resolving is if the "obviously superior" site 12 works fairly well, one can argue, if a certain amount of spade I3 work and preparation has been done in the applicant's own Id review process, the "obviously superior" doctrine at least r..
15 takes into account the factor that tht site has been proposed 16 by the applicant, has been looked at harder, and there is more J
I7 informa+. ion available on it than other sites.
)
I8 That philosophical rationale is really not as obviously applicable to a process at a point in which he is 20 just starting off to look at sites.
21
~
That's one of the hardest issues I think the Staff 22 is going to have to come to grips with.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That controversy over whether 24 cm-Federal RCoorters, Inc.
j 25 one, I suppose that would become mere pointed depending upon i
d
s..._.;
m.; - -
=
jon 33 I
the point in time at which you were do'ing the review?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
I think that's right.
I think among 3
the best is'one of the. concepts the Staff is looking at in 4
connection with-the development of this paper.
5 "Among the best" being the criterion that the 6
applicant would be useing in his initial selection process.
[
7 I-guess the theory there being if he looks at sites 8
among the best, and you follow that through, and the 9
Commission uses the "obviously superior" doctrine, that at f
ui6 10 least in theory should produce a good selection process.
- 7 11 COfEISSIONER BRADFORD:
Am I right in remembering i
12 a footnote somewhere in the March '77 Seabrook case to the
.i 13 effect that the "obviously superior" standard does not apply 14 to reviews earlier than -- or doesn't necessarily apply to 15 reviews at an earlier point in time?
16 MR. SEAPAR:
I think it raised a question about it, 17 if my memory is correct.
It didn't flatly say it did not 18 apply, but raised a question,as I recall.
19 MR. E'.c6.? :
One thing that raises the question is 20 of these various elements that are inerent to "obviously l
21 superior," one of them is the importance of the disparity j
'22 of information at the proposed site compared to the other 23 sites.
24 The Staff judgment after a number of cases where e Feerd Recomte, lr.c.
l 25 they had been deeply involved recently is that this is f
I i
i r
jon 34 I
probably a lesser element than maybe was thought before.
2 The Staff feels that at least technically on the 3l basis of reconnaissance level information, they can come to 4
grips with ne important impacts on that site pretty well.
5 The detailed studies that follow are aimed more at 6
mitigating impacts rather than changing the site.
7 You pretty well know the important impacts.
The 8
question is: how do you design most effectively to mitigate 9
if you decide to stay 'at that site?
10 I Maybe the importance of the disparity of information II is subject to your question here.
12 If it is of no importance, then the "obviously 13 superior" criterion could apply to any time.
Id If it is of overriding importance, then there's 15 a fundamental question as to whether or not that same standard i
16 could be applied earlier.
I7 MR. SPANGLER:
Could I make a comment on the overallI i
18 perspective of this?
l9 It seems to me one of.our fundamental problems we 20 must address -- and are beginning to address -- is that UEPA 2I itself says that all appropriate -- it doesn't even use the i
22 word "all."
It says appropriate alternatives should be 23 considered.
hFed:rst Reporters, Inc, 25 Here is a case where, you know, all reasonable i
I e
.c-jon 35 I
alternatives were given the similarity of sites within a 2
resource area in terms of environmental impacts.
i 3
It would be ridiculously expensive to consider all 4
reasonable alternatives.
5 Also, the confidence level of gathering more 6
inforz6ation, you know, has to be considered; so here we have I
7 a process where you must have-an operational definition of
[
8 "obviously superior" that takes into account the cost of l
information, the incremental gain in confidence or reliability 9
10 or -- you know; and then the penalty to society if there is an
{
ll error in judgment.
r All are elements of a cost / benefit analysis of the f
I2 13 information process of defining a reasonable region of I
interest; the number of sites to be. considered within that 15 region; how much information you amass; and all of that.
16 I don't really think you get anywhere in developing I7 a definition of "obviously superior" without getting into a i
18 cost / benefit analysis of the process itself.
v CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Mal, plunge ahead.
i 20 MR. ERNST:
The last slide on the NRC's role is a Staff consensus, such as we were able te generate, f
2I l
22 (Slide. )
l 23 Generally the Staff felt that greater independent t
involvement than is acceptable under NEPA really has little g
25' environmental merit.
It may have some credibility merit, but j
f
jon '
36 1
as far as actual prott ' tion of the environment, it would j
2 have little improvement in environmental protect 4.on.
3 MR. SHAPAR:
Does that depend on how good a job the 4
applicant has done?
5 MR. ERNST:
Yes.
In determining the minimum under 6
NEPA, there's a couple of alternatives.
7 The applicant maybe has not done as good a job as he 8
should, in which case the Staff, if it doesn't reject the 9
application, is bound to do more; or the applicant can do a 10 good job, in which case the Staff review becomes more one of Il checking or Q/A kind of process.
12 In either case, the so-called minimum under NEPA is 13 achieved.
Id Staff consensus also is that an earlier review has 15 merit, but probably should not be mandated.
The merits are 16 clear.
17 The dermits are not so clear.
18 I do know that there was a fair amount of -- if l9 not opposition, at least concern by the states in the early 20 site review process because of the feeling that we may be 21 preempting their process with a federal judgment that some-22 thing is either good or not good at an earlier time than they 23 can accommodate in their law.
24 This kind of a problem would still exist with the i
Aa Federo Reporters, Inc.
25 alternative site question.
i l
i jon 37 I
The ' Staff also feels that the postmortem of recent 1
2 cases would be necessary to better define some of these
]
3 bd7 problems.
4
- 8 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
Let's see.
Any comment on the 5
rest of this?
6 I want to adjourn this close to noon.
7 I would suggest the following to the Commissioners:
8 I would like to hear a quick summary of.the rest of these i
9 points at issue by way of information to provide some 10 opportunity for questions; but it does seem to me that certain 11 elements of the issue before the Commission in this matter at 12 the present time have' changed since the last meeting; that is, 13 there was a Staff proposal that the Commission consider 14 making on its own behalf a proposed policy statement on which we asked questions and so on.
It seems to me that the further 16 development of the Staff views in their taking into account the OPE point of view and so on now puts before the house a 18 proposition that a way to stir up comment and get what the.
19 Staff believes would be a useful round of input, there is a 20 mechanism for doing that in which the Commission can take note 21 to the extent it wishes, but doesn't become directly involved.
T 22 The intent now is to use this,public comment devise to develop thoughts further and te move aggressively 24 forward with the rulemaking which is a direction that we were,
%.p 25 I think, in part suggesting last time would be desirable to r
.... ~... - -.. _. ~., _..
..m,_.,_.J_-.'
t 38 jon l
l t
i I
get on to.
2 ;j:
I have the feeling perhaps that the issue before 3
the Co= mission at the moment ther is somewhat easier and 4l
= ore limited.
\\
i 5;
I wonder if,furthermore, the Staff would propose to i r
i 6;
go with the documents it has in hand; that is, I don',t feel e
7l th'e need that I did last time for us to have an extended i
8!
series of meetings in which there votid be considerable l
l i
9,!
discussion on each of these issues by way of guidance to the l
10 Staff.
4 Il That will come, but down the line.
12 '
I wonder what your thouchts are, whether you would l
13 agree with me.
14 I would like to har a s - >ry of a few of these i
1 *8 1' slides on the interest here, but I am going to end up in d
16 j another 13 minutes asking you if you would not agree with =e 17 '
to let the Staff go ahead with its NUREG, Part A, Part 3, la Part C, et cetera on the basis of the outline.
19 Do you see a difficulty with that?
20 {
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
21 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sounds fine to te.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, I know, wants to leave
",. a
[!
promptly at 12:00 and has left =e a proxy along that line.
I felt encouraced to trv to have the rest of us do w o.ec Reoo, n, inc. m 4
2Sl that.
i 3
1
?
jon 39 l
I Okay.
That will be indeed the direction that we go.
2 The Commission is saying okay, go ahead and put out 3
your proposed NUREG and get your ccmments.
Move forward then i
4 as planned into the rulemaking posture on these alternative i
5 sites.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They would be developing 7
proposed rules?
8 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Coming out of the comments.
9 Now, what I would like to do, Mal, is have you go 10 !
through, but you are going to have to move faster so you can Il at least give us a 40-second summary on each of the issues.
12 CO!DiISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have a bias in favor of 13 taking an textra 40 seconds on each of the next ones.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You can create the, additional 15 discussion period by asking some questions.
I I
16 l John, you can go ken you like.
17 l MR. ERNST:
Let me make one comment.
I think there 18 ;
are several areas where we would appreciate any comments the I
I9 Commission might have on some of the quandries the Staff finds i I
20,
itself in.
21 Anything we can do to further that communication j
22 would be appreciated,whether it be in parallel with this 1
rulemaking or afterwards or something like that.
l 23 l
24 l Hopefully parallel, if there's any comment you would:
w eers nea rters, inc.
25 care to give to the Staff.
.ei-2 J.'
j on' 40 1
CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Oh, I think you i 11 have lots of comment.
Before and during.
3 MR. ERNST:
What I will try to do, then, on the 4
rest of these issues, is not really go through them slide by 5
slide, but just give sort of a perception of where we find t
6 perhaps the greatest consternation and then open up to 7
questions as we go.
8 In the region of interest, I think the greatest 9
consternation the Staff finds is how far does one go in the 10 region of interest and what are some useful criteria for 11 deciding that you have gone far enough.
12 (Commissioner Kennedy returned to the meeting at 13 '
11:50 a.m.)
14 MR. ERNST:
Generally speaking -- and I talk 15 generally because there are exceptions to everything --
16 generally there is likely to be sufficient environmental 17 and other kinds of resources in sufficient diversity.within a 18 service area to satisfy HEPA that an environmentally Eensitive' i
19 decision regarding siting has been made.
20 The factors that require going further than that 21 clearly are the -- the limiting one is clearly how far can 22 you transmit power with existing ties and things of that 23 nature.
(
24 I think the Staff feels that maybe something useful i
..p.,,
g 25 can be done in this area if wr: can define the kinds of I
I
l jon 41 1
diversity and resources areas or the kinds of resource areas 2
that are useful for siting nuclear power plants; and then 3
if you can make some kind of general determination that a 4
particular region of interest has sufficient diversity, we 5
can stop; but right now we are at a little bit of a loss as to 6
'how to say that we have gone far enough in the region of 7
interest.
8 Basically some of the problems we have are difficult 9
to resolve.
10 For example, in the technical area, if you get very 11 deeply into power transfers, reliability, and stability, 12 things of this nature, it certainly adds an extra dimension 13 of complexity to the analysis as far as NRC's capabilities are 14 concerned.
15 Clearly overriding all of this is the cost 16 effectiveness of the review.
17 The further out you go, the more' costly the 18
-investigation becomes; and one has to balance the cost not l
only to us, but also of the public and the utilities, against 20 the degree of environmental protection that's achieved.
21 So basically that's the general concerns in the 22 region of interest.
23 The.Gtaff feels technically that many options are i
24 y Fedwal Reconm, Inc.
open to defining 4 region of interest.
Whatever option is 25 chosen, though, must have some mechanism in it that is t
l
~
jon 42 I
environmentally sensitive and can be demonstrated to be 2
sd8 environmentally sensitive.
3
- o COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you asking the public-to l
4 comment on what in their opinion the resolution of the 5
various subissues here ought to be?- Or are you saying here is 6
an NRC Staff position, please comment on that?
7 MR. ERNST:
We really have no NRC Staff position as-8 to the criteria that might be usefui in defining a region of 9
interest.' That has not been generated.
10 i But some public thoughts on what they consider to be important might be useful in formulating the criteria.
12 My personal feeling is whenever we come out with I3 ruelmaking, it should have sorte rather explicit criteria for Id defining the region cf interest.
MR. SHAPAR:
Aren't some of the Staff positions 6
described in NUREG and the Staff consensus?
I7 MR. ERNST:
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Would the Staff consensus,
on the first subissue, for example, be that - in most cases q
20 I think it was your phraseology -- the service area would 21 be the relevant region of interest?
22 MR. ERNST:
I think if I go any further than what is 1
23 listed in Staff consensus, it ceases to be Staff consensus.
24 I & have m e al @ M m h d at an a, M Gere's w.p.o.rai s.oort.<t ine.
a Earill' large constituency, I think, for starting with the I
a
=
jon 43 I
service area; and unless one can demonstrate rationally why 2
that'does not have useful' siting options, then don't go'--
3 from'au environmental standpoint then go further outside.
~
4 Now, how one determines that --
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What's the service area -- state 6
. boundary?
Do we need a new slide up there?
7 MR. ERNST:
I think probably the next slide.
8 (glide,)
9 CHAIR!iAN HENDRIE:
What's the dash for?
Service 10 area or --
II MR. ER:iST:
There's some mixed feeling as to whether 12 service area or state boundary -- some' service areas include I3 several states in which case maybe a state boundary for the 14 area being served may be more useful.
15 Some service areas, it is a very small service area, 16 in which case you might want to enlarge -- maybe in a small I7 state, you might want to enlarge past the service area.
18 I think that's the rationale for a dash.
I' With the variant sizes of service areas.
t' 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you have joint 2I i
application, what?
Are you talking about several service 22 areas?
23 MR. ERNST:
Joint application could be serveral 24 service areas and could be several states.
Then the question i O Tederal Reporters; inc.
25 becomes if the proposed site is in a given state, perhaps l
44 l
j on, I
there's a rationale for saying either the service area of the 2
operator of the facility or maybe tne state involved may be a 3l useful -- there is no Staff consensus in the service area / state boundary subissue.
5 There is a feeling that to go as far as one can go 6
from a standpoint of transfer of energy through tie lines and 7
tnings of that nature, although minimizing litigative risks --
8 certainly likely in most cases -- has little environmental 9
benefit from the standpoint of environmental protection.
10 l CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
I think the maximum distance at II which bulk power in some circcmstances might be t:ransmitted 12 seems to me to be considerably beyond the range at which one I3 might reasonably consider alternative sites for most plants; I#
since that range, depending upon the extremes to which you are teck I,1 15 willing to go in the transmission mode, but, by George, if 6
you are willing to go to DC, it can run out to 1500 miles, I7 that doesn't seem to me to be an enormously -- the technical I8 capability doesn't seem to be a very useful measure.
19 MR. ERNST:
What we continually get drawn into is 20 less a demonstration that we environementally are unlikely to 21 find a better site by going further, but it is more te other 22 way around: if you can transmit the power, show me why one 23 shouldn't look there.
You know.
.ce-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 to transmit power.
jon * *.
45 l'
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you are going to transi: lit 2
the power there, why not look there and redefine the service-3 area; that sort of concept?
1 4
MR. ERNST:
That's right.
That's the constraint the 5
Staff finds itself in.
6 I don't know the answer to it', but --
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't either.
8 MR. ERNST:
Maybe there is an environmentally 9
sensitive set of criteria one could develop.
10 The key to this whole thing may well be the resource II area concept which may well be watersheds.
If you had a 12 coastal site, a couple of watersheds, something like that, 13 maybe that's sufficient diversity of resources that one can 14 say " Gee, let's confine our look there."
15 But it is tied pretty closely to the general. Staff 16 judgment hat there's a number of enviornmentally good 17 sites available.
i 18 You are in a statistical process when you go through I9 the site selection process.
You are probably as likely to havei l
20 left behind an obviously superior site in the statistical 21 process of screening as you would be likely to leave.behind a 22 site by not having a much gizeater expanded region of interest.
23 So, to some extent, it may be a statistical exercise 24 that we can demonstrate sufficiently well.
"co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 d9 I don't know.
i l
.s.
i jon
'3' 46
- 10 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we plunge ahead.
2 i
MR. ERNST:
That's all on region of interest.
3l Let's go to the candidate sites.
1 (Slide. )
i 1
5 Basically the Staf f, I think, judges that there's j
6 a number of ways of going from the region of interest down 7
to candidate sites that are probably acceptable from an environmental standpoint.
9 One of the overriding things which comes up in the 10 later set.of viewgraphs -- I may as well throw it in here l
11 because it is certainly applicable at'this stage -- is the so-called obviously inferior quality standard that the Staff 13 i
has talked about.
1 14 That basically says that based on recon level j
15 information one can make rational siting judgments with regard 16 to alternatives.
17 This means that one likely can identify those t
18 inferior qualities that would turn you off on a particular i
i l
l 19 site.
I 20-Say, " Hey, there ought to be a better site 21 somewhere."
22 There is an alternate mode of operating which the 23 Staff feels is worthy of investigation that says that if you
'24 Can't identify any obViously inferior qualities of a proposed l w.FeoerQ Rooorters, inc.
4 25 l
site, it is probably not worthwhile to pay a great deal of i
)
l-
b I
O 9
J i)on
'47 o
I attention to tha site selection process, because even 'if you 2-did, if you can't find some inferior qualities in the proposed 3
site, you are not likely to come up with an '!obviousl'y 4
superior" site.
5 To some extent, that's the other side of the balance 6
of the "obviously superior"' site balance; not exactly the same, 7
but somewhat.
]
8 So the basic issues in the candidate site area, I 9
think, could hinge around this type of an approach.
10 We find nothing wrong with the "among the best" Il standard which is proposed as a way of doing business and
+
r 12 which is the way we are doing business right now.
l I3 Some sort of demonstration that the candidates i
Id came out of a good site selection process that likely would 15 yield sites that are among the best.
16 There's nothing wrong with that concept.
)
17 Procedurally it is effective and can be implemented.
i 1
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is "among the best" the same-I9 as "as good or better"?
20 MR. ERNST:
This is a very interesting conversation, 21 I think.
It is one that has been going around for a long time.
22 I guess my perception of the thing is -you have a 23 band of uncertainty and within that band of uncertainty you l
24 might have environmental equivalent, or functional equivalent, D4Wwd Reorwrs, lm, l
25 or whatever you want to call it, kinds of sites that you, for
>s.o 48 Jon 1
one reason or another -- either data dif ferences, inability to 2
balance in a cost / benefit method, or magnitude of impact l
l 3ll that's going to turn you off as a regulatory agency and say j
4 go somewhere else -- all of these things sort of sit here in l
5 a band.
i 6
If you have a number of sites within this band, 7
thel we are saying they are essentially equivalent.
8 Then you cite the one the applicant wants to choose 9
as fine.
Ones that are below that band we say are inferior 10 and we would be turned off on a site like that, il ones above the band, we would say are "obviously 12 superior."
13 I think also one could say anything from this 14 point above on the band is as good as or better; so the 15 terminology, I think sometimes one places more meaning on 16 the terminology than physically what really exists.
17 l 70MMISSICNER IGNNEDY:
In your description "as good t
i 18 as or better" encompasses a larger group of sites, potentially,'
19' than "obviously superior"?
20 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
21 MR. ERNST:
If you had this band, "as good or 22 better" -- in the measure of goodness -- this is increasing 23 l goodness -- would be this (indicating).
l 24 If your proposed site is "as good as or better,"
l wseerm amonm. inc.,
j 25 then it is anywhere from this line up.
i t
y,,
ow 49 I
However,.if you reject on the basis of an obviously 2
superior site, your rejection criteria is that your proposed 3
site lies from this level down.
So really it is the same 4
physically.
5 It turns out to be likely that you are going to make Ed10 6
the same, decision regardless of which standard you use.
- 11 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
"Obviously inferior" is from 8
that line down.
"Obviously superior" is from the top of your 9
fingers up?
10 MR. ERNST:
Yes.
II COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
An "obviously superior" site i
12 is from the top of the band up?
13 MR. ERNST:
That's right.
But if you have an 14
_obviously superior" candidate, that means your proposed site i
15 is obviously inferior.
l 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Your proposed site can't 17 be in the band at all.
l 16 MR. ERNST:
I am trying to keep the band steady.
l9 I think the various crite.ria we are talking about are all abouti 20 one and the same.
21 The key thing is what are the elements that are in 1
22 this uncertainty band in which we make a decisoin.
23 Clearly, if-you are above it or below it, you know 24 what the decision is.
But how big is this uncertainty band, is Ace #edefd Reporters, Jnc.
l the real crux of the problem, and what are the elements that l
I
_. _ -. _.., -... ~.
l
jon' 50 1
contribute to that hadn.
2 Let's go to B-3-3, that slide, please.
3; (Slide.)
4 The. Staff did consider various options to selecting 5
candidate sites.
There are two basic options.
One is where 6
the screening criteria itself gives explicit consideration to 7
environmental values; and the second general option is where 8
the screening criteria does not have explicit environmental t
9 factors and it might have come implicit ones such as water-10 l sheds and things like that; but you would assure that you Il apply some environmental criteria when you go from potential 12 sites down to candidate sites, so that's sort of how we 13 factored out the options.
14 The Staff's general feeling in this area was as long 15 as you consider the environment in some manner prior to the 16 finalizaation of candidate sites, you probably can do a good 17 technical job.
Again, we may have a credibility problem in 18 I
19 implementing these various options.
20 (Commissioner Bradford left the meeting at 12:0'7 p.m.)
21 col @iISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I ask a question?
Is 22 there any significant change in the 163 (b) list of issues?
23 You said this is a summary of the 163 (b).
I 2d MR. ERNST:
Yes.
,m Fa*W Rnen,n, Inc.
25,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have to leave.
If there I
@ o n,*1 ' '
51 a
I had been a significant change, I would have asked you to 2
address it.
3l MR. ERNST:
I hope there is not.
There is not an 4
intentional one.
That's for certain.
5 I was trying to highlight the major aspects of (b).
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I haye an appointment I am I
J 7
overdue for as well.
I think we are going to have to 8
terminate the meeting.
9 I will note, as you' leave, John, that the Commission 10 has indeed acted and told the Staff to go ahead and put the II NUREG out as proposed and send it to rulemaking as proposed.
12 We will hear considerably more of these subjects as 13 time goes on.
You will report to us on the public comments 14 you have, 3.,ur analysis, and move toward a proposed rule and 15 talk to us about the matter.
16 MR. ERNST:
Does the Commission desire to see this 17 NUREG7 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No.
Information copies ought to l
I9 be sent, but you are to go ahead.
20 Thank you very much.
21 (Whereupon, at 12 :10 p.m., the meeting was 22 adjourned.)
23 24 C Federal Reporters, Inc.
25