ML13304A653

Forwards 800819 Fr Notice Re Final Rules Upgrading Emergency Planning Regulations,Effective 801103

ML13304A653
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	09/05/1980
From:	Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Gallagher P, Pigott D, Raynard Wharton AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CHICKERING & GREGORY, WHARTON & POGALIES
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8009090774
Download: ML13304A653 (20)

Text

September 5, 1980 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

David R. Pigott, Esq.

1695 West Crescent Avenue Chickering & Gregory Suite 222 Three Embarcadero Center Anaheim, California 92701 Twenty-Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

Wharton and Pogalies 2667 Camino Del Rio South Suite 106 San Diego, California 92108 In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-361 OL and 50-362 OL

Dear Mrs. Gallagher and Messrs.-Pigott and Wharton:

On August 19, 1980, the NRC published final rules apgrading its emergency planning regulations, in the Federal Register, 45 F. R. 55402, et seq. These-rules become effective on November 3,1980. A copy of the new rules da attached for your information.

Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION.

Ivan W. SMith, Esq., Chairman Reg. Central Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Member LPDR.

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member FF (2)

Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Shapar/Engelhardt/

Charles R. Kocher' Christenbury Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Tourtellotte Mrs. Lyn'Harris Hicks Chandler David W. Gilman HRood A. S. Carstens DScalletti Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Chron.

Atomic Safety and:Licensing Board Secretary.

O FFICE

........0E L D.....

SURNAMEO..L handler:cr 0

9

! 0 DATE 9/.

/80

/

NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 19791289-369

A September 5, 1980 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

David R. Pigott, Esq.

1695 West Crescent Avenue Chickering & Gregory Suite 222 Three Embarcadero Center Anaheim, California 92701 Twenty-Third Floor San Fancisco, California 94111 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

Wharton and Pogalies 2667 Camino Del Rio South Suite 106 San Diego, California 92108 In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-361 OL and 50-362 OL

Dear Mrs. Gallagher and Messrs. Pigott and Wharton:

On August 19, 1980, the NRC published final rules apgrading its emergency planning regulationS, in the Federal Register, 45 F. R. 55402, et seq. These rules become effective on November 3, 1980. A copy of the new rules to attached for your information.

Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION Ivan W. SMith, Esq., Chairman Reg. Central Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Member LP(2 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke, Member Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Shapar/Engelhardt/

Charles R. Kocher, Christenbury Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Chandle Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks David W. Gilman HRood A. S. Carstens OScalletti Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Chron.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board SecrCrtbyury O FFICEO.

.. QELD.........:..

SRNAME LChandl er: ch an O

F F T E......

0 E L D

.0 NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979-289-369

P Tuesday August 19, 1980 Part VIII Nuclear Regulatory Commission Emergency Planning; Final Regulations

-=a

55402 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations NUCLEAR REGULATORY The final regulation contains the comments/suggestions in connection COMMISSION following elements:

with the proposed amendments within

1. In order to continue operations or to 60 days after publication in the Federal 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 receive an operating license an Register. During this comment period (in applicant/licensee will be required to January 1980] the Commission Emergency Ptanning submit its emergency plans, as well as conducted four regional workshops with State and local governimental emergency State and local officials, utility AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory response plans, to NRC. The NRC will representatives, and the public to Commission.

then make a finding as to whether the discuss the feasibility of the various ACTON Fnalrue.state of onsite and offsite emergency portions of the proposed amendments.

ACTION: Final rule.preparedness provides reasonable their impact and the procedures

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory assurance that adequate protective proposed for complying with their Commission is upgrading its emergency measures can and will be taken in the provisions. The NRC used the planning regulations in order to assure event of a radiological emergency. The information from these workshops along that adequate protective measures can NRC will base its finding on a review of with the public comment leters to and will be taken in the event of athe Federal Emergency Management develop the final rule (more than 200 radiological emergency. Nuclear power Agency (FEMA) findings and comment letters and the points made in plants and certain other licensed determinations as to whether State and two petitions for rulemaking were also facilities are required to submit their local emergency plans are adequate and considered).

emergencyplans. together with the capable of being implemented and on In addition to the above, on June Z5.

emegeny rsposeplas o Stte nd the NRC assessment as to whether the 2980, the Commission was briefed by emergency response plans of State and local governments, to the Commission.

licensee's/applicant's emergency plans three panels of public commenters on The Commission and the Federal Energy are adequate and capable of being the rule-one each comprised of Management Agency will review the implemented. These issues may be representatives from the industry, State plans for adequacy. The amendment raised in NRC operating license and local governments, and public also extends emergency planning bearings, but a FEMA finding will interest groups. Each panel raised conideatins o ~xnegeny Pannng constitute a rebuttable presumption on important concerns regarding the final considerations to "Emergency Planning Zones", and makes additional the question of adequacy.

rule. On July 3.1980, the Commission clarifications.

2. Emergency planning considerations was briefed by its staff in response to EFFCTVE

~mNovmbr 3190.

will be extended to "Emergency

'.these panels, including several EFFECTIVEPlannig Zones,"

modifications to the proposed final Note.-The Nuclear Regulatory

3. Detailed emergency plan rules. Finally, on July 23, 1980 at the Commission has submitted this rule to the implementing proceudres of licensees/

final Commission consideration of these Comptroler General for review of the applicants will be required to be rules, the Commission was briefed by reporting requirements in the rule. pursuant submitted to NRC for review, and the General Counsel on the substance of to the Federal Reports Act. as amended (44

4. Requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, conversations with Congressional staff U.S.C. 3512). The date on which the reporting reuirS.C. t of]

the dute bon e hich the Appendix E are clarified and upgraded.

members who were involved with requirements of the rule become efetie pe asg fte R uhrzto c

includes a 45-day period, which the statute

Background

frsale 18 PL N

o A29 allows for Comptroller General review (44foficlya19.PbLN.9625 allos rComno Generalreview.

In June 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory The General Counsel advised the UJ.S.C. 3512(c)(2)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMAON CONTAC Commission began a formal Commission that the NRC final rules Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian, Office reconsideration of the role of emergency were consistent with that Act The tandards Dvel omen, U..Ncear planningin ensuring the continued Commission has relied on all of the 45tndrdsDeelpmet.U.. Nclar protection of the public health and above information in its consideration of Regulatory Commission. Washington.

safety in areas around nuclear power these final rules. In addition, the D.C. 20555 (telephone: 3443-5966).

facilities. The Commission began this Commission directs that the transcripts SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION On reconsideration in recognition of the of these meetings shall be part of the September 19, 1979 and on December 19, need for more effective emergency administrative record in this rulemaking.

1979. the Commission published for planning and in response to the TM However, the transcripts have not been public comment (44 FR 54308 and 44 FR accident and to reports issued by reviewed for accuracy and, therefore, 75167) proposed amendments to its responsible offices of government and are only an informal record of the emergency planning regulations for the NRC's Congressional oversight matters discussed.

production and utilization facilities.

committees.

Ater evaluating all public comment Extensive comments were received. all On December 19 19n the Nuclear letters received and all the information of which were evaluated and considered Regulatory Commission published in the obtained during the workshops as well in developing the final rule. The Federal Register (44 FR 75167) proposed as additional reports such as the comments received and the staffs amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Presidential Commission and the NRC evaluation is contained in NUREC-0684.

Appendix E to Part 50 of its regulations.

Special Inquiry Group Reports, the In addition, the NRC conducted four Publication of these final rule changes in Commission has decided to publish the Regional Workshops to solicit the Federal Register is not only related final rule Changes described below.

comments; these comments are to the December 19, 1979 proposed rule available in NUREC/CP-O0I (April changes but also incorporates the 1980).

proposed changes to 10 CFR Pas 0 The Commission has decided to adopt

'Copiesand 70 (44 FR 54308) published on a version of the proposed rules similar the Commission a Public Document Room 1717 t September 19. 1979. Interested persons alterative A described in Sections Street.be were invited to submit written 50.47 and 50.54 in the Federal Register purchased from the Govermment Prnting Office.

Notice dated December 19, 1979 (44 FR Information on current prices may be obtained by Washington. D.C. 2=5 Aim Publ 75167), as modified in light of comments.

wriinTg the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Sales M ner.

These rules are consistent with the

Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55403 apPrOach outlined by F A and NRC in applicantllrcensee will be requred to

(.

Requirement for specialized training a Memorandum of Understanding (45 FR submit its emergency plans, as well as (Section IV.F) 547, January 24 1980). No new State and local governmental emergency

7. Provisions for up-to-date plan operating license will be granted unless-response plans, to NRC. The NRC will maintenance (Section IV.G]

the NRC can make a favorable finding then make a finding as to whether the Applicants for a construction permit that the integration of onsite and offsite state of onsite and offsite emergency would be required to submit more emergency planning provides preparedness provides reasonable information as required in the new reasonable assurance that adequate assurance that adequate protective Section II of Appendix E.

protective measures can and will be measures can and will be taken in the Rationale for the Final Rules taken in the event of a radiological event of a radiological emergency.

emergency. In the case of an operating The NRC will base its finding on a The Commission's final rules are reactor, if it is determined that there are review of the FLMA findings and based on the significance of adequate such deficiencies that a favorable NRC determinations as to whether State and emergency planning and preparedness finding is not warranted and if the local emergency plans are adequate and to ensure adequate protection of the deficiencies are not corrected within 4 capable of being implemented and on public health and safety. It is clear, months of that determinadon, the the NRC assessment as to whether the based on the various official reports Commission will determine applicant's/licensee's emergency plans described in the proposed rules (44 FR expeditiously whether the reactor are adequate and capable of being 75169) and the public record compiled in should be shut down or whether some Implemented. In any NRC licensing this rulemaking, that onsite and offsite other enforcement action is appropriate, proceeding, a FEMA finding wil emergency preparedness as well as pursuant to procedures provided for in consitute a rebuttable presumption on proper siting and engineered design 10 CFR 2.200-2-2O6. In any case where the question of adequacy. Specifically.

features are needed to protect the health the Commission believes that the public

a. An operating license will not be and safety of the public. As the health, safety, or interest so requires, the issued unless a favorable NRC overall Commission reacted to the accident at plant will be required to shut down finding can be made.

Three Miecisland, it became clear that immediately (10 CFR 2.202(f), see 5

b. After April 1, 1981, an operating the protection provided by siting and U.S.C. 558(c)).

plant may be required to shut down if it engineered design features must be The standards that the NRC will use is determined that there are deficiencies bolstered by the ability to take in making its determinations under these such that a favorable NRC finding protective measures during the course of rules are set forth in the final regulation.

cannot be made or is no longer a

a t

Te cien a d

Wherever possible, these standards may warranted and the deficiencies are not clearly that onsite conditions and blend with other emergency planning corrected within 4 months of that actions, even if they do not cause procedures for nonnuclear emergencies determination.

significant offsite radiological presently in existence. The standards 2 Emergency planning considerations consequences, will affect the way the are a restatement of basic NRC and now must be extended to "Emergency protect the public from any dangers joint NRC-FEMA guidance to licensees Planning Zones." and associated with the accident. In order to and to State and local governments. See

3. Detailed emergency planning discharge effectively its statutory NURE-0654: FEMA-REP-1, "Criteria implementing procedures of both responsibilities, the Commission must for Preparation and Evaluation of licensees and applicants for operating know that proper means and procedures Radiological Emergency Response Plans licenses must be submitted to NRC for will be in place to assess the course of and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear review.

a acet a sess te corseof Power Plants for Interim Use and In addition, the Commission is that NRC and other appropriate Comment." (January 1980). In deciding revising 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E authorities and the public will be whether to permit reactor operation in "Emergency Plans for Production and notified promptly, and that adequate the face of some deficiencies, the Utilization Facilities," in order to clarify, protective actions in response to actual Commission will examine among other expand. and upgrade the Commission's or anticpated conditions can and will factors whether the deficiencies, are emergency planning regulations.

te taken.

significant for the reactor in question.

Sections of Appendix E that are The Commission's organic statutes whether adequate interim compensatory expanded include:

provide it wsth a unique degree of actions have been or will be taken

1. Specification of "Emergency Action discretion in the execution of agency promptly, or whether other compelling.

Levels" (Sections IV.B and C) functions. Siegel v. AEC 400 F2d 778, reasons exist for reactor operation. In

2. Dissemination to the public of basic 783 (D.C. Cir. 1968, see Westinghouse determining the sufficiency of "adequate emergency planning information ElectrC Corp. v.

eCe 598 F.2d 759, 771 interim compensatory actions" under (Section IV.D]

& n.47 3d Cir. 1979). "Both the Atomic this rule. the Commission will examine

3. Provisions for the State and local Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy State plans, local plans, and licensee governmental authorities to have a

Reorganization Act of 1974 confer broad plans to determine whether features of capability for rapid notification of the regulatory functions on the Commission one plan can compensate for public durng a serious reactor and specifically authorize it to deficiencies in another plan so that the emergency, with a design objective of promulgate rules and regulations it and safety is adequate. This completing the initial notification within deems necessary to fulfill its interpretai is c tent ith te 15 minutes after notification by the responsibilities under the Acts. 42 U.S.C.

interpretation is consistent with the licensee (Section IV.D)

I 2201(p)." Public Service Co. of New provisions of the NRCAuthorization Act

4. A licensee onsite technical support Hampshire v. NRC. 582 F.2d 77, 82 (1st for fiscal year 1980 Pub. L 98-295.

center and a liensee near site Cir.), cer. denied. 439 U.S. 1048 (1978).

The regulation contains the followig emergency operations facility (Section See 42 U.S.C. 2233(a). As the Supreme three major changes from past practices:

IVE)

Court stated almost 20 years ago, the

1. In order to continue operations or to

5. Provisions for redundant Atomic Energy Act yclearly recieve an operating license, an communications systems (Section IV.E) contemplates that the Commi sion shall

5340 4 Federal Register /Vol.

45. No. 162 ! Tuesday. August 19. 1980 Rules and Regulations by regulation set forth what the public proposed rule changes. The following Commission's disposition to grant such safety requirements are as a prerequisite major issues have been raised in the

-exemptions.

to the issuance of any license or permit comments received.

5. The Commission. in developing this under the Act." Power Reactor comen i

5 the oso ieveo th Development Co. v. International Union ssue A* NRC Review and Concurrence aspect of the proposed rule, must of Electrical Radio Machine Workers.

in State and Local Radiological Plans consider its own history. There was time when regulation was characterized by 367 U.S. 396. 404 (1961). Finally, it is also

1. FEMA is best suited to assess the the leaders of the agency by simple and clear that "Congress. when it enacted adequacy of State and local radiological very appropfiate expressions. The

[42 U.S.C. 2236]... must have emergency planning and preparedness process was tobe "effective and envisioned that licensing standards, and report any adverse findings to NRC efficient." The application of regulatory especially in the areas of health and for assessment of the licensing a uthority was to be "firm, but fair."

safety regulation, would vary over time consequences of those findings.

Regardless of the outcome of the as more was learned about the hazards

2. The proposed rule fails to provide concurrence" issue, the Commission of generating nuclear energy. Insofar as objective standards for NRC must appreciate that alternative B is not those standards became more concurrence, reconcurrence. and fair. It is not effective regulation.

demanding. Congress surely would have withdrawal of concurrence.

wanted the new standards, if the

3. In the absence of additional Issue D: Public Education Commission deemed it appropriate, to statutory authority, the proposed rule Only information required to inform apply to those nuclear facilities already frustrates Congressional intent to the public about what to do in the event licensed." Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority preempt State and local government of a radiological emergency need be

. United States 606 F.2d 96. 996 (D.C.

veto power over nuclear power plant disseminated. There should be Cir. 1979).

operation, flexibility, La any particujar case, as to In response to and guided by the

4. Procedures and standards for who will be ultimately responsible for various reports and public comments, as adjudication of emergency planning disseminating such information.

well as its own determination on the disputes are not adequately specified d ssem i.ega s i nority significance of emergency preparedness, the proposed rule.

the Commission has therefore concluded Isu1.

mrecyPann oe

. A few comamenters felt that NRC that adequate emergency preparedness Issue BEmergencyPlanning had no authority to promulgate a rule as is an essential aspect in the protection

[EPZs) the one proposed.

of the public health and safety. The

1. Regulatory basis for imposition of

2. Other comments were the nature Commission recognizes there is a the Emergency Planning Zone concept that NRC has statutory authority onry possibility that the operation of some should be expressly stated in the inside the limits of the plant site.

reactors may be affected by this rule regulation.

m

3. Some commenters suggested that through inaction of State and local

2. Provisions regarding the plume

.NRC and FEMA should seek additional governments or an inability to comply exposure pathway EPZ should provide a legislation to compel State and local with these rules. The Commission maximum planning distance of 10 miles.

governments to have emergency plans, if believes that the potential restriction of

3. References to NUREG-0396 should that is what is necessary.

plant operation by State and local be deleted to avoid disputes over its d ta Sh eessry.

officials is not significantly different in meaning in licensing proceedings.

Isue &.Schedule for Implementation kind or effect from the means already issue C: Alternative A and B (in 50.47 The schedule for implementing the available under existing law to prohibit n504)poseruewscsirdtob reactor operation, such as zoning and and 50.54j proposed rule was considered to be landus laweratifisuchaionfic 1d Nunrealistic and in some cases in conflict land-use laws, certification of public

1. Neither alternative is necessary with various State schedules already in convenience and necessity, State because the Commission has sufficient existence. A sampling of the comments financial and rate considerations (10 authority to order a plant shut down for on the implementation schedule follows:

CFR 50.33(f)), and Federal safety reasons and should be prepared I. The 180 days in the schedule is an environmental laws. The Commission to exercise that authority only on a insufficient amount of time to notes. however, that such considerations case-by-case basis and when a accomplish tasks of this magnitude: the generally relate to a one-time decision particular situation warrants such Federal government does not work with on siting. whereas this rule requires a action.

uch speed. States are bureaucracies periodic renewal of State and local

2. No case has been made by the aso; there is no reason to assume they commitments to emergency Commission for the need for automatic can work faster. It took years of working preparedness. Relative to applying this shutdown, as would be required in with States to get the plans that are rule in actual practice, however, the alternative B. and certainly no other presently concurred in. It is just are Commission need not shut down a NRC regulations exist that would insufficient time for new concurrences facility until all factors have been require such action based on a concept and review. Also, to get a job done thoroughly examined. The Commission as amorphous as "concurrence in State within that time frame means a hurried believes, based on the record created by and local emergency plans."

job, rather than an acceptable and the public workshops, that State and

3. The idea that the Commission might meaningful plan.

local officials as partners in this grant an exemption to the rules that

2. The time provided is inadequate for undertaking will endeavor to provide would permit continued operation States to acquire the hardware needed.

fully for public protection.

(under alternative B) has little States must go out for competitive bids Sunmary of Comments on Major issues significance. primarily because 10 CFR just as the Federal government does.

Part 50.12 (a) already permits the Between processing and accepting a bid The Commission appreciates the granting of exemptions, and actual delivery of equipment, it may extensive public comments on this

4. The process and procedures for take a year to get the hardware. The important rule. In addition to the record obtaining such exemptions are not State budgets years ahead; therefore, if of the workshops, the NRC has received defined, nor is there any policy a State or locad government needs more over 20o comment letters on the indication that would indicate the money. it may have to go to the

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55405 legislature. This is a time-consuming difficulties associated with such a ITe basis for effective offaite public process that may not fit the requirement response capabilities is a sound Federal schedule.

3.dra Nchandule.Acudntrve Issue I-Emerlency Action Leel emergency preparedness program.

3.Federal support (funding and technical or more plans and provide concurrence Applicants, in cooperation with State assistance) for the development of State by January 1. 1981. The Federal and local governmental authorities, and local offsite capabilities should be government moves slowly. Commenters should be permitted the necessary icorporated into FEIMA's preparedness did not think that NRC and FEMA can flexibility to develop emergency action program for all emergencies.

review all the plans within the time level criteria appropriate for the facility frame scheduled. If the Federal in question. subject to NRC approval.

Issue M Ceneral government cannot meet its schedule.

Inflexible NRC emergency action level The States support Federal oversight why or how should the States?

standards are not necessary.

and guidance in the development of

4. Funding could not be appropriated offsite response capabilities. However, by State and local governments before Issue. Training many States feel the confusion and the deadline. It was suggested that the

1. Mandatory provision for training uncertainty in planning requirements Commission use H. Rept. c96-413, local service personnel and local news following Three Mile Island is not a "Emergency Planning U.S. Nuclear media persons is outside of NRC's proper environment in which to develop Power Plants: Nuclear Regulatory jurisdiction and is not necessary to effective capabilities nor does it serve Commission Oversight." for the time protect the public health and safety.

the best interests of their citizens. The frame rather than that in the proposed

2. Public participation in drills or development of effective nuclear facility rule or use a sliding-scale time frame critiques thereof should not be required.

incident response capabilities will since States are at various stages of

3. The provision regarding formal require close coordination and completing their emergency plans.

critiques should be clarified to mean the cooperation among responsible Federal licensee is responsible for developing agencies. State goverrnent, and the Issue C: Impact of Proposed Rule and conductn such critiques, nuclear industry. An orderly and

1. The proposed regulations were

4. Definitive performance criteria for comprehensive approach to this effort considered by some commenters as evaluation of drills should be developed makes it necessary that onsite unfair to utilities because it was felt by the licensee, subject to NRC responsibilities be clearly associated they place the utilities in the political approval with NRC and the nuclear industry and financial role that FEMA should be while deferring offsite responsibilities to assuming. NRC is seen as in effect pl ntin oe State government with appropriate giving State and local governments veto NRC review of implementing FMA oversight and assistance.

over the operation of nuclear plants. It procedures is only necessary to apprise In addition to these comments, two was questioned whether this was an the NRC staff of the details of the plans petitions for rulemaing were filed in intent of the rule. In additioni it was felt for use by the NRC during the course of reference to the proposed rule. These that utilities, their customers, and their an actual emergency.

were treated as public comments rather shareholders should not be penalized by than petitions and were considered in Sshutdown (with a resulting financial Issue indeveloping the final rule.

burden) because of alleged deficiencies

1. Nuclear facilities, although located The Commission has placed the or lack of cooperation by State and local in one governmental tax juisdiction and planning objectives from NUREG-54 officials, taxed by that jurisdiction, affect other FEA-REP...i "Criteria for Preparation

2. it was suggested that NRC's Office jurisdictions that must bear immediate and Evaluation of Radiological of Inspection and Enforcement conduct and long-term planning costs without Emergency Response Plans and the reviews of the State and local having access to taxes from the facility.

Preparedness in Support of Nuclear governmental emergency response plans

2. As the radius of planning Power Plants for Interim Use and in order to ensure prompt effective, and requirements becomes greater, few ComthenteJanuary 19, into the final consistent implementation of the facilities are the concern of a single regulations. Comments received proposed regulationsd county. The planning radius often concerning NURsE.-06 were available

3. One commenter noted that the encompasses county lines. State lines, in developing the final regulation. The public should be made aware of the and in some instances, international Commission notes that the planning issue of intermediate and long-term boundaries.'

objectives in NLIREG-0654 were largely impacts of plant shutdowns.

3. As new regulations are generated to drawn from NUREG-75/111, "Guide and Specifically, people should be informed oversee the nuclear industry and old Checklist for Development and of the possibility of "brownouts," cost ones expanded, there is an immediate Evaluation of State and Local increases to the consumer due to need to address fixed nuclear facility Governent Radiological Emergency securing alternative energy sources, and planning at all levels of government Response Plans in Support of Fixed the health and safety factors associated beginning at the lowest and going to the Nuclear Facilities." (December 1, 1974) with those alternative sources.

highest. All levels ofgovernment need and Supplement I thereto dated March access to immediate additional funds to

15. 1977 which have been in use for Issue H Public Notification upgrade their response capability, some time.

1. Ultimate responsibility for public

4. It is well understood that the The approximately 60 public comment notification of a radiological emergency consumer ultimately must pay the price letters received on NUREG-0al4 were must be placed on State and local for planning, regardless of the level in not critical of the proposed planning government.

government at which costs are incurred, objectives. The Commission also notes

. The "fifteen minute" public It becomes a matter of how the that at the May 1. 190 ACRS meeting.

notification rule is without scientific consumer will be taxed, who will the Atomic Indusial Forum justification, fails to differentiate administer the tax receipts, and what is representative encouraged the use of the between areas close in and further away the most effective maner in which to planning objectives from NUREC-06s4 from the site, and ignores the technical address the problem in the final regulations in order to secuingaltenatve eerg souces an

55406 Federal Register / Vol 45, No. 182 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations reduce ambiguity and provide specificity capability of implementation of State and longer times to release significant to the final regulation.

and local plans.

amounts of activity in many scenarios).

Based on the above, the Commission

4. To make decisions with regard to Guidance regarding the radionuclides to has decided to modify the proposed rule the overall state of emergency be considered in planning is set forth in changes in the areas discussed in reparedness (i.e, integration of the NUREC-o398; EPA 520/1-7&-026, paragraphs I through X below.

lcensee's emergency preparedness as Vlanning Basis for the Development of Ldetermined by the NRC and of the State and Local Government FEM/NR RlatonsipStatellocal governments as determined Radiological Emergency Response Plans In issuing this rule. NRC recognizes by FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and in Support of Light-Water Nuclear the significant responsibilities assigned issuance of operatng licenses or Power Plants," December 1978.

to FEMA, by Executive Order 12148 on shutdown of operating reactors.

July 15. 1979. to coordinate the In addition. FEMA has prepared a IV. RadonAe for Alternatives Chosen emergency planning functions of proposed rule regarding "Review and In a few areas of the proposed rule, executive agencies. In view of FEMA's Approval of State Radiological the Commission identified two new role. NRC agreed on September 11.

Emergency Plans and Preparedness" (44 alternatives that it was considering.

1979, that FEMA should henceforth chair FR 42342 dated June 24. 1980).

Many public comments were received the Federal Interagency Central According to the proposed FEMA rule, on these alternatives: based on due Coordinating Committee for FEMA wil approve State and local consideration of all comments received Radiological Emergency Response emergency plans and preparedness, as well as the discussions presented Planning and Preparedness (FICCC). On where appropriate based upon its during the workshops, the Commission December 7, 1979, the President issued a findings and determinations with has determined which of each pair of directive assigning FEciA lead respect to the adequacy of State and alternatives to retain in the final rule.

responsibility for offsite emergency local plans and the capabilities of State In Sections 50.47 and 50.54 (s) and (t),

preparedness around nuclear facilities, and local governments to effectively the alternatives dealth with conditioning The NRC and FE-MA immediately implement these plans and the issuance of an operating license or initiated negotiations for a preparedness measures. These findings continued operation of a nuclear power Memorandum of Understanding (M~

and determinations will be provided to plant on the existence of State and local that lays out the agencies' roles and the NRC for use in its licensing process.

government emergency response plans provides for a smooth transfer of t

concurred in by NRC. The basic byi E

g ln Zone Concept difference between alternatives A and responsihbilies. Iteisecgnized tatutha The Commission notes that the in these sections was that. under

14. 19W0. supersedes some aspects of regulatory basis for adoption of the alternative A. the proposed rule would previous agreements. Specifically, the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ] concept require a determination by NRC on is the Commission's decision to have a issuing a license or permitting continued MOU~I additiones FEMA hasponprepared aon With respect to emergency preparedness oservative emergency planing policy operation of plants in those cases where as they relate to NRC as the following:

in addition to the conservatism inherent relevant State and local emergency

1. To make findings and in the defense-in-depth phlosophy. This response plans had not received NRC determinations as to whether State and policy was endorsed by the Commission concurrence. Denial of a license or in a policy statement published on shutdown of a reactor would not follow To emergy lan Stae awd era October 23, 1979 (44 FR 81123). At that automatically in every case. Under

2. o vrif tht Sateandlocl time the Commission stated that two alternative B, shutdown of the reactor emergency plans are capable of being Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) would be required automatically if the mipentednce ( eadre ran should be established around each light appropriate State and local emergency ecewater nuclear power plant. The EPZ for response plans ad not received NRC resources, staff levels and airborne exposure has a radius of about concurrence within the prescribed time qualification, and equipment).

10 miles-, the EPZ for contaminated food periods unless an exemption is granted.

3. To assume responsibility for nd water has a radius of about Alter consideration of the public eegypreparedness rudtceraciities.

e nC ade i

imiles.

Predetermined protective action record and on the recommendation of its State and local officials, plans are needed for the EPZs. The staff, the Commission has chosen a text

4. To develop and issue an updated exact size and shape of each EPZ will be for Sections 50.47 and 50.54 (s) and (t) series of interagency assignments that decided by emergency planning officials that is similar to. but less restrictive delineate respective agency capabilities after they consider the specific than, alternative A in the proposed rul and responsibilities and diefine conditions at each site. These distances MOUhe which becamein effectiveJanuary procedures for coordination and are considered lae enough to provide a of the reactor as the only enforcement direction for emergency planning and response base that would supportacinndperbngscic revosaee nts Specfclly thereciin peii resone.activi1ty outside the planning zone preconditions for the shutdown remedy, Specifically, the NRC responsibilities should this ever be needed, the final rule makes clear that for with emrency torepargeness ienareds inr threnc prpaar: des idn e

11.position on planning Basis for Small emergency planning rules, like all other as to ae rules. reactor shutdown as outlined in foradeinac Timnsms as cnd tat the rule is but one of a number of oapossible enforcement actions and many 2 To verify that licensee emergency the operators of small light-water-cooled factors should be considered in plans are adequately implemented (e.g.,

power reactors (less than 250 MWt) and determining wether it is an appropriate adequacy and maicieenance of the Ft. St. Vram gas-coaled reactor may action in a given case.

is Commission procedures, training, resources, staffing establish smaller planning zones which choice is consistent with most of the levels and qualifications, and will be evaluated on a case-by-case comments received from State and local equipment),

basis. This conclusion is based on the

3. To review the FEMA findings and lower potential hazard from these Se Sctn V far determinations on the adequacy and facilities (lower radionuclide inventory pacbieioce.tes

Federal Register /Vol.

45, No. 162 ITuesday, August 19, 1980 /Rules arnd Regulations 55407 governments and is consistent with the the licensee emergency response plans.

basis for choice of notification provisions of Section 109 of the NRC After these two determinations have capability requirements for offaite fiscal year 1980 Authorization Act.

been made, NRC will make a finding in authorities and for the public.

Alternative B was seen by some of the the licensing process as to the overall Emergency plans must be developed commenters as potentially causing and integrated state of preparedness.

that will have the flexibility to ensure unnecessarily harsh economic and It was pointed out to the Commission response to a wide spectrum of social consequences to State and local at the workshops and in public comment accidents. This wide spectrum of governments, utilities, and the public.

letters that the term "concurrence" was potential accidents also reflects on the State and local governments that are confusing and ambiguous. Also, there ponia ace o

r the directly involved in implementing was a great deal of misunderstanding notification capability. The use of this planning objectives of the rule strongly with the use of the term because, in the notification capability will range from favor alternative A since it provides for past, the obtaining of NRC ifiationcati rage from a cooperative effort with State and local "concurrence" in State emergency (withediate notification of the public governments to reflect their concerns response plans was voluntary on behalf (thin 15 minutes) to listen to and desires in these rules. This choice is of the States and not a regulatory predesignated radio and television responsive to that effort. In addition, the requirement in the licensing process.

stations, to the more likely events where industry strongly supported alternative Previously too. "concurrence" was there is substantial time available for A as being the more workable of the two statewide rather than site-specific.

the State and local governmental alternatives.

officials to make a judgment whether or In Appendix E. Sections II.C and I VI. Fifteen-Minute Notification not to activate the public notification alternative A would require an The requirement for the capability for system.

applicant/licensee to outline...

notification of the public within 15 Any accident involving severe fuel corrective measures to prevent damage minutes after the State/local authorities degradation or core melt that results in to onsite and offsite property," as well have been notified by the licensee has significant inventories of fission as protective measures for the public.

been expanded and clarified. It also has products in the containment would Alternative B addresses only protective been removed as a footnote and placed warrant immeiate public notification measures for the public health and in the body of Appendix E. The and consideration based on the safety. The Commission has chosen implementation schedule for this particular circumstances, of appropriate alternative B because public health and requirement has been extended to July 1.

protective action because of the safety should take clear precedence 1981. This extension of time has been

• potential for leakage of the containment over actions to protect property.

adopted because most State and local building. In addition, the warning time Measures to protect property can be governments identified to the available for the public to take action taken on an ad hoc basis as resources Commission the difficulty in procuring may be substantially less than the total become available after an accident.

hardware. contracting for installation.

time between the original initiating In Appendix E. under Training, and developing procedures for operating event and the time at which significant alternative A would provide for a joint the systems used to implement this radioactive releases take place.

licensee, Federal. State, and local requirement radiatie releaes tak e a government exercise every 3 years, The Commission is aware that various Specification of particular times as whereas alternative B would provide for commenters, largely from the industry, design objectives for notification of these exercises to be performed every 5 have objected to the nature of the 15-offsite authorities and the public are a years at each site. The Commission has minute notification requirement, means of ensuring that a system will be chosen alternative B because the indicating that it may be both arbitrary in place with the capability to notify the Commission is satisfied that the and unworkable.

public to seek further information by provision that these exercises be Among the possible alternatives to listening to predesignated radio or performed every 5 years for each site this requirement are a longer television stations. The Commission will allow for an adequate level of notification time, a notification time that recognizes that not every individual preparedness among Federal emergency varies with distance from the facility, or would necessarily be reached by the response agencies. In addition. under no specified time. In determining what actual operation of such a system under these regulations, each licensee is that criterion should be. a line must be all conditions of system use. However, required to exercise annually with local drawn somewhere, and the Commission the Commission believes that provision governmental authorities. Furthermore, believes that providing as much time as of a general alerting system will Federal emergency response agencies practicable for the taking of protective significantly improve the capability for may have difficulty supporting exercises action is in the interest of public health taking protective actions in the event of-every 3 years for all of the nuclear and safety. The Commission recognizes an emergency. The reduction of facilities that would be required to that this requirement may present a notification times from the several hours comply with these rule changes.

significant financial impact and that the required for street-by-street notification V. Defintion oIf Plan Approval Process technical basis for this requirement is to minutes will significantly increase the Thefiitrm "cofPancu r

val bn not without dispute. Moreover, there options available as protective actions The term "concurrence" has been may never be an accident requiring under severe accident conditions. These deleted from the proposed regulations using the 15-minute notification actions could include staying indoors in and replaced with reference to the capability. However, the essential the case of a release that has already actual procedure and standards that rationale behind emergency planning is occurred or a precautionary evacuation NRC and FEMA have agreed upon and to provide additional assurance for the in the case of a potential release thought are implementing. According to the public protection even during such an to be a few hours away. Accidents that agreed upon procedure, FEMA will unexpected event. The 15-minute do not result in core melt may also make a finding and determination as to notification capability requirement Is cause relatively quick releases for which the adequacy of State and local wholly consistent with that rationale.

protective actions, at least for the public government emergency response plans.

The Commission recognizes that no in the immediate plant vicinity, are The NRC will determine the adequacy of single accident scenario should form the desirable.

55408 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 /Tuesday, August 19, 19W Rules and Regulations Some comments received on the reasons exist for reactor operation.

seeking an operating license from NRC proposed rule advocated the use of a Finally, pursuant to 0 CFR 2.a2f, the that ave not had an exercise involving staged notification system with quick Commission may. in appropriate the State plan at that facility site.

notification required only near the plant.

circumstances. make the order The Commission has determined The Commission believes that the immediately effective, which could under the criteria in h0 CFR Part that capability for quick notification within result in immediate plant shutdown an environmental impact statement for the entire plume exposure emergency subject to a later hearin o

the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and planning zone should be provided.but mg he Appendix E thereof is not required. This recognizes that some planners may wish Funding tenti o is based on to have the option of selectively In view of the requirements in these "Environmental Assessment for Final actuating part of the system during an rule changes regarding the actions to be Changes to 10 CFR Part 50 and actual response. Planners should taken in the event State and local Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50, carefully consider the impact of the government planning and preparedness Emergency Planning Requirements for added decisions that offsite authorities are or become inadequate. a utility may Nuclear Power Plants" (N REG-q06u5i would need to make and the desirability have an incentive, based on its own self June 1980). Comments on the "Draft of establishing an official interest as well as its responsibility to Negative Declaration: Finding of No communication link to all residents in provide power, to assist in providing Sigaifcant Impact" (45 FR 3913. January the plume exposure emergency planning manpower, items of equipment, or other S,

if9 were considered in the zone when determining whether to plan resources that the State and local preparation of NUREG-O65.

for a staged notification capability.

governments may need but are Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of VII. Effective Date of Rules and Other themselves unable to provide. The 1954. as amended the Energy Guidance Commission believes that in view of the Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.

President's Statement of December 7.

and Sections 552 and 553 of Tie 5 of the Prior to the publication of these 1979, giving FEMA the lead role in United States Code, notice is hereby amendments. two guidance documents offsite planning and preparedness, the given that the following amendments to were published for public comment and' question of whether the NRC should or Title t Chapter L Code of Federal interim use. These are NUREG-0610, could require a utility to contribute to Regulations. Parts 5 0 and 70, a l

Draft Emergency Action Level the expenses incurred by State and local published as a document subject to Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants,"

governments in upgrading and codification.

(September 1979) and NUREG-.0654/

maintaining their emergency planning FdMA-REP-i "Criteria for Preparation and preparedness (and if it is to be Part 50-.Domestic Licensing of and Evaluation of Radiological required, the mechanics for doing so) is Production and Utilization Facilities Emergency Response Plans and beyond the scope of the present rule 1 aarp g fScin5-3i Preparedness in Support of Nuclear change. It should be noted.

ee

1. Paragraph () of Section 50.33 is Power Plants for Interim Use and that any direct funding of State or local revised to read as follows:

Comment," (January 1980). It is expected governments solely for emergency I S0.33 Contwnt of applcations gesial that versions of these documents.

preparedness purposes by the Federal information.

revised on the basis of public comments government would come through FEM1A.

received. will be issued to assist in X. Exercises (8) If the application is for an defining acceptable levels ofop r t n li e s f r a nu e r p w r preparedness to meet this final On an annual basis, all commercial operating license for a nuclear power regulation. In the interim, these nuclear power facilities will be reuired reactor, the applicant shall submit documents should continue to be used by NRC to exercise their plans, these of State and local governmental entities as guidance.

exercises should involve exercising the in the United States that are wholly or VIII. Hearing Procedures Used in appropriate local government plans in partially within the plume exposure Inplementation of These Regulations support of these facilities. The State pathway Emergency Planning Zone may choose to limit its participation in (pthw as well as the plans of State Shoud the NRC believe that the exercises at facilities other than the governments wholly or partially within overall state of emergency preparedness facility (site) chosen for the annual the ingestion pathway EPZ GIenerally, at and around a licensed facility is such exercise(s) of the State plan.

the plume exposure pathway EPZ for that there is some question whether a Each State and appropriate local nuclear power reactors shall consist of facility should be permitted to continue government shall annually conduct an an area about 10 miles (16 ki) in radius to operate, the Commission may issue exercise jointly with a commercial and the ingestion pathway EPZ shill an order to the licensee to show cause, nuclear power facility. However, States consist of an area about P

miles (80 km) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202. why the plant with more than one facility (site) shall in radius. The exact size and should not be shut down. This issue may schedule exercises such that each configuration of the EPZ surrounding a arise, for example, if NRC finds a individual facility (site) is exercised in particular nuclear power reactor shall significant deficiency in a licensee plan conjunction with the State and be determined in relation to the local or in the overall state of emergency appropriate local government plans not emergency response needs and preparednessd less than once every 3 years for sites If the NRC dec-ides to issue an order to with the plume exposure pathway EPZ 1Emergency Plannii Zones

=vZ) ae discussed show cause, it will provide the licensee partially or wholly within the State. and in NUREC.39e. EPA SM,'i-78-.O6. "Planning Basis the opportunity to demonstrate to the not less than once every 5 years for sites for the Developmen of State and Local Government Commission's satisfaction. for example, with the ingestion exposure pathway Radiologcal Emergency Response Plans in Spponr that the alleged deficiencies are not EPZ partially or wholly within the State.

7at.

significant for the reactor in question, The State shall choose, on a rotational 2lIfthe State and local emergency' response plans whther adeqate inte om nsating basis, the site(s) eeehave been revousl proved to the NRC for ac whether ionthha e e ern compeoring lbse alerie(s) ito be conduced inclusion in the facility docet. the applicant need a c t i n s a v e e e n o r i l l e t k e na n n u l e e r c s e ~ s i s t o e c o d u c e d ;

o n l y P r o v i d e t h e a p p r p ra t e r e f e r e n c e to m e e t th is promptly, or whether other compelling priority shall be given to new facilities traqcwmenL.

Federal Register /Vol.

45. No. 182 1Tuesday, August 196 1980 Rules and Regulations 55409 capabilities as they are affected by such (3) Arrangements for requestsg and established for emergency workers. The conditions as demography, topography.

effectively using assistance resources means for controlling radiological land characteristics, access routes. and have been made, arrangements to exposures shall incude expoiae jurisdictional boundaries. The size of the accommodate State and local staff at guidelines consistent with EPA EPZs also may be determined on a case the licensee's near-site Emergency Emergency Worker and Lifesaving by-case basis for gas-cooled reactors Operations Facility have been made.

Activity Protective Action Gwdes and for reactors with an authorized and other organizations capable of (12) Arrangnents are made for power level less then 250 MW thermal.

augmenting the planned response have medical services for contaminated The plans for the ingestion pathway been identified.

edilsvicesf shall focus on such actions as are (4) A standard emergency inred individuals.

appropriate to protect the food ingestion classification and action level scheme, reentry are developed.

pathway.

the bases of which include facility (14) Periodic exercises are (will be)

2. A new I 50.47 is added.

system and effluent parameters. is in (14)uPedi exercae ar (wil be

§ so4 M.

use by the nuclear facility licensee. and conducted to evaluate major portions of eny State and local response plans call for energency response capabilities,

()(1) No operating license for a reliance on information provided by develop and maintain key skills and nuclear power reactor will be issued facility licensees for determinations of deficiencies identified as a result of unless a finding is made by NRC that the minimum initial offaite respanse exercises or drills are (wia re) state of onsite and offsite emergency measures.

preparedness provides reasonable (5) Procedures have been established corrected.

assurance that adequate protective for notification, by the licensee. of State (15) Radiological emergency response measures can and will be taken in the and local response organizations and far traming is provided to those who may event of a radiological emergency.

notification of emergency personnel by be called on to assist in an emergency.

(2) The NRC will base its finding on a all organizations: the content of initial (rle) Responsibilities for plan review of the Federal Emergency and followup messages to response development and review and for Management Agency (FEMA) findings organizations and the public has been distribution of emer s are and determinations as to whether State established-and means to provide early established and planners are properly and local emergency plans are adequate notification and clear instruction to the trained and capable of being implemented, and populace within the plume exposure (c)(1) Failure to meet the standards set on the NRC assessment as to whether pathway Emergency Planning Zone have forth in paragraph (b) of this subsection the applicant's onsite emergency plans been established.

may result in the Commission declining are adequate and capable of being (e) Provisions exist for prompt to issue an Operating License; however.

implemented. In any NRC licensing communications among principa the applicant will have an opportunity pronstitut aFEMAnd iresponse organizations to emergency to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the rc din a reuttablend pe io personnel and to the public.

Commission that deficiencies in the question of adequacy.

(7) Information is made available to plans are not significant for the plant in quesTion onsi ad offthe public on a periodic basis on how question. that adequate interim (br The onsite and offsite emergency they will be notified and what their compensating actions have been or will response plans for nuclear power initial actions should be in an be taken promptly. or that there are reactors must meet the following emergency (e.g., listening to a kml other compelling reasons to permit plant (1) Primary responsibilities for broadcast station and remaining operation.

emerency responsbtes nucler indoors), the principal points of contract (2) Generally, the plume exposure emergency response by the nuclear with the news media for dissemination pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants facility licensee and by State and local of information during an emergency shall consist of an area about 10 miles organizations within the Emergency (including the physical location or (16 km) in radius and the ingestion Planning Zones have been assigned. the locations) are established in advance, pathway EPZ shall consist of an area emergency responsibilities of the and procedures for coordinated about 50 miles (80 km) in radius. The various supporting organizations have dissemination of information to the exact size and configuration of the EPZs been specifically established, and each public are established.

surrounding a particular nuclear power principal response organization has staff (8) Adequate emergency facilities and reactor shall be determined in relation to respond and to augment its initial equipment to support the emergency to local emergency response needs and response on a continuous basis, response are provided and maintained.

capabilities as they are affected by such (2) On-shift facility licensee (9) Adequate methods, systems. and conditions as demography, topography, responsibilities for emergency response equipment for assessing and monitoring land characteristics, access routes, and are unambiguously defined. adequate actual or potential offsite consequences jurisdictional boundaries. The size of the staffing to provide initial facility of a radiological emergency condition EPZs also may be determined on a case accident response in key functional are in use, by-case basis for gas-cooled nuclear areas is maintained at all times, timely (10) A range of protective action, reactors and for reactors with an augmentation of response capabilities is have been developed fote lume authorized power level less than 250 available and the interfaces among exposure pathway EPZ for emergency MW thermal. The plans for the ingestion various onsite response activities and workers and the public Guidelines for pathway shall focus on such actions as offsite support and response activities the choice of protective actions during are appropriate to protect the food are specified, an emergency, consistent with Federal ingestion pathway.

guidance, are developed and in place,

3. Section 50.54 s amended by adding

'ThemE standards ea addressed bT specific and protective actions for the ingestion five new paragraphs (q). (r), (s), (t). and "Crue sa0 4

f P p o

a E

i n tiof exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to pur

(

Ra log cal Emergency Respanae Plans and the locale have been developed.

Prdness Lo Suppon wt Nucexap Per Paz (11) Means for controlling radiological f50-54 Conditions of Hcens For Lntenm Us. and Comnnary i 1~o exposures, in an emergency, are

55410 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations (q) A licensee authorized to possess within 60 days of the effective date of significant for the plant in question. or and/or operate a nuclear power reactor thisamendment the radiological that adequate interim compensating hal fol ow and maintain in effect emergency response plans of State and actions have been or will be taken emergency plans which meet the local governmental entities in the United promptly, or that there are other standards in I 50.47(b) and the States that are wholly or partiafly within compelling reasons for continued requirements in Appendix E of this Part.

plume exposure pathway EPZ as we operation.

A licensee authorized to possess and/or ta the plans of State governments (3) The NRC will base its finding on a operate a research reactor or a fuel wholy or partially within an ingestion review of the FEMA findings and facility shall follow and maintain in pathway EPZ.L' 2 Ten (10) copies of the determinations as to whether State and effect emergency plans which meet the above plans shall be forwarded to the local emergency plans are adequate and requirements in Appendix E of this Part.

Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation capable of being implemented, and on The nuclear power reactor licensee may with 3 copies to the Director of the the NRC assessment as to whether the make changes to these' plans without appropriate NRC regional office.

licensee's emergency plans are adequate Commission approval only if such Generally, the plume exposure pathway and capable of being implemented.

changes do not decrease the EPZ for nuclear power reactors shall Nothing in this paragraph shall be effectiveness of the plans and the plans, consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) construed as limiting the authority of the as changed, continue to meet the in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ Commission to take action under any standards of I 50.47(b) and the shall consist of an area about 50 miles other regulation or authority of the requirements of Appendix E of this Part.

(80 km) in radius. The exact size and Commission or-at any time other than The research reactor licensee and/or the configuration of the EPZs for a that specified in this paragraph.

fuel facility licensee may make changes particular nuclear power reactor shall (t) A nuclear power reactor licensee to these plans without Commission be determined in relation to local shall provide for the development, approval only if such changes do not emergency response needs and revision, implementation, and decrease the effectiveness of the plans capabilities as they are affected by such maintenance of its emergency and the plans, as changed, continue to conditions as demography, topography, preparedness program. To this end, the meet the requirements of Appendix E of land characteristics, access routes, and licensee shall provide for a review of its this Part. Proposed changes that jurisdictional boundaries. The size of the emergency preparedness program at decrease the effectiveness of the EPZs also may be determined on a case-least every 12 months by persons who approved emergency plans shall not be by-case basis for gas-cooled nuclear have no direct responsibility for implemented without application to and reactors and for reactors with an implementation of the emergency approval by the Commission. The authorized power level less than 250 preparedness program. The review shall licensee shall furnish 3 copies of each MW thermal. The plans for the ingestion include an evaluation for adequacy of proposed change for approval; and/or if pathway EPZ shall focus on such interfaces with State and local a change is made without prior actions as are appropriate to protect the governments and of licensee drills, approval. 3 copies shall be submitted food ingestion pathway.

exercises, capabilities. and procedures.

within 30 days after the change is made (2) For operating power reactors, the The results of the review, along with or proposed to the Director of the licensee, State, and local emergency recommendations for improvements, appropriate NRC regional office response plans shall be implemented by shall be documented, reported to the specified in Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 20, April 1, 1981, except as provided in licensee's corporate and plant with 10 copies to the Director of Nuclear Section TV.D.3 of Appendix E of this management, and retained for a period Reactor Regulation, or, if appropriate, Part. If after April 1. 1981, the NRC finds of five years. The part of the review the Director of Nuclear Material Safety that the state of emergency involving the evaluation for adequacy of and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory preparedness does not provide interface with State and local Commission. Washington, D.C. 20555.

reasonable assurance that appropriate governments shall be available to the (r) Each licensee who is authorized to protective measures can and will be appropriate State and local possess and/or operate a research or taken in the event of a radiological governments.

test reactor facility with an authorized emergency and if the deficiencies are (u) Within 60 days after the effective power level greater than or equal to 50 not corrected within four months of that date of this amendment, each nuclear kW thermal. under a license of e toe finding, the Commission will determine power reactor licensee shall submit to Specified in I 50.21(c)e shal t

submit whether the reactor shall be shut down the NRC plans for coping with emergency plans complying with 10 CFR until such deficiencies are remedied or emergencies that meet standards in Part 50. Appendix E to the Director of whether other enforcement action is I 50.47(b) and the requirements of Nuclear Reactor Regulation for approval appropriate. In determining whether a Appendix E of this Part.

within one year from the effective date shutdown or other enforcement action is of this rule. Each licensee who is appropriate, the Commission shall take

4. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E is into account, among other factors, amended as follows:

authorized to possess and/or operate a whether the licensee can demonstrate to research reactor facility with an the Commission's satisfaction that the Appendix E-Emergency Planning and authorized Power level less than p kW deficiencies in the plan are not F

a ess for Production and Utilization thermal, under a license of the type

______Facilities' specified in I 50.21(c), shall submit

'Emergency Planning zones EzsJ ae discussed emergency plans complying with 10 CFR io NVREC-0ge: EPA s

"Pli e

Table of Contents Part 50, Appendix E to the Director of for the Development of State and Local Governaent L Introduction Nuclear Reactor Regulation for approval Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support within two years from the effective date o

gt Water Nuclear Power Plants.' December NRC staff bas developed two regulatory guidea:

of this amendment.

f d

I. t.6.

"Emergency Planning for Research Reactors,"

of hisamedmet.'If the State and local emergency response plans and 3.42 "Emnergency Planning in Fuel Cycle (s)(1) Each licensee who is authorized bave been previously provided to the NRC for FaciLties and Plants Lcensed under i

L Paris to possess and/or operate a nuclear clusion in the facility docket the applicant need 50 and 70," and a ioint NRC/FE d

report NuREG toposess reanor oral t t Nr roide the appropriate reference to meet this 0654; F4A-REP-1. "Criteria for Preparation and Power reactor shall summit to NRC reqwreiment.

Footnotes continued on next page

Federal Register r Vol. 45. No. 182 Tuesday, August 19 198

/ Rules and Regulations 55411 II. he Preliminary Safety Analysis Report consideration, as access mates, surrounding expmmou of the orerall concept of IIL The Final Safety Analysis Report poptlation distributions, land use, and local operation they shall descrbe the essetal IV. Content of Emergency Plans juisdictional boundaries for the EPZs in the elements of advance planning that have been V. Implementing Procedures case of nuclear power reactors as well as the considered and the provisions that have been L Introductio means by whi the standards of I 5.47(b)

Made to cop With emergency sitUationS. The will be met.

plans shall incorporate information about the Each applicant for a construction permit is Ass minimum, the followig items shall be emergency respoose roles of supporting required by I 50.34(a) to include in the described:

organuzanons and offsite agendes That preliminary safety analysis report a A. Onsite and offaite organizations for information shall be sufficerm to provide discussion of preliminary plans for coping -

coping with emergence and the means for assurance of coordination among the with emergencies. Each applicant for an notification. in the event of an emergency, of supporting groups and with the licensee operating license is required by I 50.34(b) to persons assigned to the emergency The plans submitted must include a include in the final safety analysis report orgamsiations.

description of the elements set out in Section plans for coping with emergencies.

B. Contacts and arrangements made and N for the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs2 This appendix establishes minimum documented with local, State. and Federal to an extent sufficent to demonstrate that the requirements for emergency plans for use in governmental agencies with responsibility f plans provide reasonable assurance that attaining an acceptable state of emergency coprtg with emergencies. including appropriate measures can and will be taken preparedness. These plans shall be described identifiation of the principal agencies.

in the event of an emergency.

generally in the preliminary safety analysis C. Protective measures to be taken within report and submitted as a part of the fal safety analysis report.

t boundary and within each EPZ to protect health and safety in the event of an The applicant's emergency plans shall The potential radiological hazards to the accident procedures by which these contain, but not necessarily be Limited to.

public associated with the operation of Measures are to be carried out (e.g.. i information needed to demonsnate research and test reactors and fuel facilities case of an evacuation. who authorizes the compliance with the elementi set forth licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 eacuatoe how the public is to be notified below, i.e.. organization for coping with involve considerations different than those and intructed how the evacuation is to be radiation emergencies, assessment action, associated with nuclear power reactors c

activation of emergency orgadzation.

Consquetly th sie o Emegeny crrid ot) nd te epeced es~onsci~

notification procedures, emergency facilities Consequently, the size of Emergency eent of an emergency.

and equipment trai maintaiing Planning Zones (EPZs) for facilities othm Features of the facility to be provided cy prepareess, and recovery. In than power reactors and the degree to which a i the e compliance with the requirements of this decontamination and for emergency a

Section and Sections EL IIL IV, and V as submitted by an applicant for a nuclear willotaki be detemine ondtitrl aools power reactor opereting license shall contain necessary will be determined on a case-by-tramnfcites cess case bsis.

information needed to demonstrate cas bs~i~aE.

Provisions to be made for emergency compliance with the standards described in IL The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report treatment at offaite facilities of individuals Section 50.47(bl'and they will be evaluated The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report injured as a result of licensed activities against those standards The nuclear power shall contain sufficient information toF.

Provisions for a training program for reactor operan license applicant shall also the compatibility of proposed emergency employees of the licensee, incuding those provide an analysis of the time required to plans for both onsite areas and the EPZs.

wbo ar assigned specific authority and evacuate and for taking other protective with facility design features. site layout. and spoibilty in the event of an emergency, actos for various sectors and distances siteand for other persons who are not employees within the plme exposure pathway EPZ for sit loatin wth

~of the licensee but whose assistance may be transient and pemanient populations, Footnotes cotinued fromneeded in the event of a radiologicalA.Ogia, Po~otnotes continued from last pageemrnc.A wido Evaluaton of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear G. A preliminary analysis that proec the The organization for coping with Power Plants for Interim Use and Coment" ime and means to be employed in the radiological emegecies shall be described, January 1980. to provide guidance in developing notcation of State and local governments including definition of authorities plans for coping with emergences. Copies of these and the public in the event of an emergency.

responsibilitie and duties of individuals documents are available at the Commission's Public A nuclear power plant applicant shal assigned to the licensee's emergency Document Room. 1717 H StiWt NW. Washingtn, Perform a preliminary analysis of the time organization and the means for notfication of D.C. 1055. Copwe of these documents may be requwed to evacuate varous sectors a sucb individnals in the event of an purch from the Government Prtaba OfTca Information on current prices may be obtaed distances witin the plume exposu emergency. Specifically the following shall writag the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ComIL Pathway Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention. Publications population& noting major impediments to t I. A description of the normal plant Sales Manager.

evscuation or taking of protective actions, operating organization.

'EPZa for wer reactors H. A preliminary analysis reflecting the A description of the onsite emergency NUREC-Owwg EPA 520/1-7.-oira. -Planning Basis need to include facilities, systems. and response organization with a detailed for the Dewlopment of State and Local Governineat methods for identifying the dege of discussion of:

Radiological Emerency Response Plans in Support seriousness and potential s of

a. Authorities, responsibilities, and duties of Llbt Water Nucier Power Plants.' December radiological consequences of emergency durin an wilrtkncy

~

19-8. ITe size of the EPZA for a nuclear power plant situationa within and outside the site shall be dete-muned in relation to local emergency

b. Plant staff emergency assignmentsi response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conilions as demography. topography, projection using real-time meteorlogical c Authorities responsibiities, and duties land z.haractensues. access routes. and information and for dispatch of radiological on an onsite emergency coordinator who junsdictional boundanes. The size of the EPZa also monitoring teams within the EPZs and a shall be in charge of the exchange of may be deterined on a case-by-case basis for gas-preliminary analysis reflecting the role of the information with offaite authorities cooled nuclesr reactors and for reactors with an onsite technical support center and of the responsible for coordinating and authorned power level less than 250 MW the*1nal, near-site emergency operations facility implementing offsite emergency measures Cenerally. the plume exposuie pathtway EPZ for ally th phe exomd pahwayEPZfor3.

A description, by position and function iciear power plants with an authorized po~w r r

mti rommending to be performed of the licensee.

level grester than 250 MW thermal shall consist af protecive actio, and disemnaling an area about 10 Mles t km) in radius and the information to the public.

ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area

'T es criteria ie addireued by eitc about 50 miles (aD km) in radius.

ITegulatorv Gwde Z.6 wil be used as Te Final Safety Analysis Repodt acCritea for preparation and Evaluation of Raiological Emergency Response Plans and for the accepabitry of research and test reactor contain the plan for coping with P"Paredness in ScpPMT of Nuctw Power Plants emergency respome pnp emergencies. The plans shall bean b Intern Use load Clemeorleonazy 19

55412 Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 /Tuesday, August 19, 1980 Rules and Regulations headquarters personnel who will be sent to noted for such agencies. The emergency

2. Equipment for determining the magnitude the plant site to augment the onsite classes defined shall include: (1) notification of and for continuously assessing the impact emergency organization.

of unusual events, (2) alert. (3) site area of the release of radioactive materials to the

4. Identification, by position and function emergency, and (4) general emergency. These environment; to be performed, of persons within the classes are further discussed in NUREG-o54;

3. Facilities and supplies at the site for licensee organization who will be responsible FEanAdR.pa1.

decontamination of onsite individuals; for making off wte dose projections, and a

4. Facilities and medical supplies at the site description of how these projections will be D Notification Procedures

-for appropriate emergency first aid treatment; made and the results transmitted to State and

1. Administrative and physical means for Arrangements for the services of local authorities. NRC, and other appropriate notifying local. State. and Federal officials physician m

and other medical personnel governmental entities.

and agencies and agreements reached with qualified to handle radiation emergencies on o5. Identificatio. by position and function these officials and agencies for the prompt site; to be performed, of other employees of the notification of the public and for public

. Arrangements for transportation of licensee with special qualifications, for coping evacuation or other protective measures contaminated injured individuals from the with emergency conditions that may arise.

should they become necessary, shall be site to specifically identified treatment Other persons with special qualifications, described. This description shall include facilities outside the site boundary; such as consultants, who are not employees identification of the appropriate officials, by

7. Arrangements for treatment of of the licensee and who may be called upon title and agency, of the State and local Individuals injured in support of Licensed for assistance for emergencies shall also be government agencies within the EPZs.'

activities on the site at treatment facilities identified. The special qualifications of these

2. Provisions shall be described for yearly outside the site boundarye persons shall be described.

dissemination to the public within the plume ot A licensee onsite technical support

6. A description of the local offsite services exposure pathway EZ of basic emergency center and a licensee near-site emergency to be provided in support of the licensee's planning information, such as the methods operations facility from which effective emergency organization.

and times required for public notification and direction can be given and effective control

7. Identification of, and assistance the protective actions planned if an accident can be exercised during an emergency expected from. appropriate State. local. and occurs, general information as to the nature

c.

At least one onsite and one offite Federal agencies with responsibilities for and effects of radiation. and a liting of loca communications systen each system shall coping with emergencies, broadcast stations that will be used for have a backup power source.

8. Identification of the State and/or local dissemination of information during an All communication plans shall have officials responsible for planning for, emergency. Signs or other measures shall arrangements for emergencies. including ordering, and controlling appropriate also be used to disseminate to any transient ties and alternates for those in charge at protective actions, including evacuations population within the plume exposure both ends of te communication links and the when necessary.

pathway EPZ appropriate information that primary and backup means of would be helpful if an accident occurs.

communication. Where consistent with the B. Assessment Actions f.

A licensee shall have the capability to function of the governmental agency, these The means to be used for determining the notify responsible State and local arrangements will include:

magnitude of and for continually assessing governmental agencies within 15 minutes

a. Provision for communications with the impact of the release of radioactive after declaring an emergency. The licensee contiguous State/local governments within materials shall be described, including shall demonstrate that the State/local the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Such emergency action levels that are to be used officials have the capability to make a public communications shall be tested monthly.

as criteria for determining the need for notification decision promptly on being

b. Provision for communications with notification and participation of local and informed by the licensee of an emergency Federal emergency response organizations.

State agencies, the Commission. and other condition. By July l. 19 the nuclear power Such communications systems shall be tested Federal agencies and the emergency action reactor licensee shall demonstrate that annually.

levels that are to be used for determining administrative and physical means have been

c. Provision for communications among the when and what type of protective measures established for alerting and providing prompt nuclear power reactor control room the should be considered within and outside the instructions to the public witin the plume onsite technical support center, and the near site boundary to protect health and safety.

exposure pathway EZ. The design objective site emergency operations facility; and The emergency action levels shall be based shall be to have the capability to essentially among the nuclear facility, the principal State on in-plant conditions and instrmentation in complete the initial notification of the public and local emergency operations centers, and addition to onsite and offaite monitoring.

within the plume exposure pathway E Z the seld assessment teams. Such These emergency action levels aball be within about 15 minutes. The use of this communications system shall be tested discussed and agreed on by the applicant end notification capability will range from annually.

State and local governmental authorities and Immediate notification of the public (within f

Provisions fo communications by the approved by NRC. They shall also be 15 minutes of the time that State and local licensee with yRC Headquarters and the reviewed with the State and local officials are notified that a situation exists appropriate NRC Regional Office Operations governmental authorities on an annual basis, requiring urgent action) to the more Likely Center from the nuclear power reactor C Activation of Emergency esuas events where there is substantial time control room, the onsite technical support avaldable for the State and local center, and the near-site emergency dThe entire spectrum of emergency governmental officials to make a judgent operations facility. Such communications conditions that involve the alerting or whether or not to activate the public shali be tested monthly.

activating of progressively larger segments of notification system. Where there is adecision the total emergency organization shall be mo activate the notification system, be prvie to a

rmst described. The communicatioc steps to be and local officials will determine whether to The program to provide for (1) the train taken to alert or activate emergency activate the entire notification system of employees and exercising, by periodic personnel under each class of emergency simulhaneous~. or in a graduated or staged drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure shall be described. Emergency action levels manner. The responsibility for activating that employees of the licensee are familiar (based not only on onsite and offaite such a public notification system shall remain with their specific emergency response duties radiation monitoring information but also on with the appropriate government authorities, and (2] the participation in the training and re a d in g s fro m a n u m b e r o f s e n s o rs th a t d i l y o h r p r o s w o e a s s a c a

indicate a potential emergency, such as the E. Emneryency Facilities a~nd Equipment drillsdebyiothe pens wos asitnc a

pressure in containm~ent and the response of Adequate provisions shall be made and emergency shall be described. This shall the Emergency Core Cooling System) for described for emergency facilities and include a description of specialized initial notification of offsite agencies shall be equipment, including:

training and periodic retraining programs to described. The existence. but not the details.

2. Equipment at the site for personnel be provided to each of the following of a message authentication scheme shall be monitoring; categories of emergency personnel;

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 / Tuesday. August 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55413

a. Directors and/or coordinators of the licensed for operation each year a full-scale furnish the Director of Nuclear Material piant emergency organization exercise is not conducted which involves the Safety ard Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

b. Personnel responsible for accident State(s) within the plume exposure pathway Regulatory Commission, Washington.

assessment. including control room shift EPZ D.C. 20555, with a copy to the personnel:

All taining. including exercises, shall

c. Radioiogical monitoring teams; provide for formal critiques in order to

d. Fire control teams (fire brigades):

identify weak areas that need corrections, specified in Appendix D, Part 20 Of this

e. Repair and damage control teams; Any weaknesses that are identified shall be Chapter. each change within six months

f. First aid and rescue teams; corrected.

after the change is made. Proposed

g. Medical support personnel:

h. Licensee s headquarters support C. Maintaining Emergency Preparedness che at d eree the ss personnel; Provisions to be employed to ensure that

i. Security personnel.

the emergency plan. its Implementing a

In addition. a radiological orientation procedures. and etergency equipment and pomisiont training program shall be made available to supplies are maintained up to date shall be local services personneL e.g., local Civil described.

Defese.loca la enfrceentpersnne.

H ecoery(Sec.

161b.. I.. and o.. Pub. L 93-703. 68 Stat.

Defense, local law enforcement personneL 94 (42 U.S.C. 2201): Sec. 201. as amended.

local news media persons.

The plan shall describe provisions for the Criteria to be used to determine when.

Pub. L 93-438 88 Stat. 1241 Pub. L g a

conduct of emergency preparedness following an accident, reentry of the facility Stat. 413 (42 U.S.C. 5341)]

exercises. Exercises shall test the adequacy would be appropriate or when operation Dated at Washington. D.C. this 11th day of of timing and content of implementing could be resumed shall be described.

August 1980.

procedures and methods, test emergency V Implementing Procedures For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

equipment and communication networks, test the public notification system. and ensure that emergency organization personnel are issuance of an operating license for a nuclear Secretary of the Commission.

familiar with their duties. Each licensee shall power reactor or a license to possess nuclear

[M

= W-Zsz47 Piled a-ta-.4

&43 amj exercise at least annually the emergency plan material. 3 copies of each of the applicant's 1

coo 7S-01-.

for each site at which it has one or more detailed implementing procedures for its power reactors licensed for operation. Both emergency plan shall be submitted to the full-scale and small-scale exercises shall be Director of the appropriate NRC Regional 10 CFR Part 50 conducted and shall include participation by Office with 10 copies to the Director of appropriate State and local government Nuclear Reactor Regulation or. if appropriate.

Emergency Planning: Negative agencies as follows:

the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and D

1. A full-scale exercise which tests as much Safeguards. In cases where a decision on an of the licensee. State. and local emergency operating license is scheduled less than one Impact for Effective Rule Changes plans as is reasonably achievable without year after the effective date of this rule, such AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory mandatory public participation shall be implementing procedures shall be submitted Commission.

conducted; as soon as practicable but before full power

a. For each site at which one or more operation is authorized. Prior to March 1.

ACTON: Final negative declaration; power reactors are located and licensed for 1981, licensees who are authorized to operate finding of no significant impact.

operation. at least once every five years and a nuclear power facility shall submit 3 copies at a frequency which will enable each State each of the licensee's emergency plan and local government within the plume implementing procedures to the Director of Commissions regulations require thAt exposure pathway EPZ to participate in at the appropriate NRC Regional Office with 10 the environmental impact of certain least one full-scale exercise per year and copies to the Director of Nuclear Reactor regulatory actions, including substantive which will enable each State within the Regulation. Three copies each of any changes amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, be ingestion pathway to participate in at least to maintain these implementing procedures evaluated to determine if an one full-scale exercise every three.years.

up to date shall be submitted to the same environmental impact statement should

b. For each site at which a power reactor is NRC Regional Office with 10 copies to the located for which the first operating license Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or.

pt for that site is issued after the effective date appropriate, the Director of Nuclear Material environmental impact statement need of this amendment within one year before Safety and Safeguards within 30 days of such not be prepared, a negative declaration the issuance of the operating license for full changes.

will be issued. The NRC has evaluated power. which will enable each State and the environmental impact of the local government within the plume exposure PART 70-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF proposed changes to Part 50 dealing EPZ and each State within the ingestion SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL with emergency planning requirements pathway EPZ to participate.

for nuclear power plants (published

2. The plan shall also describe provisions elsewhere in this issue), and has for involving Federal emergency response paragraph (i) to read as follows:

determined that the rule changes will agencies in a full-scale emergency paenessexerl-cise forec siea wih 70.32 Conditions of Icenses, not have a significant impact on the preparedness exercise for each site at whichan one or more power reactors are located and licensed for operation at least once every 5 (i) Lcensees required to submit environmental impact statement will not yer;eegnyplans inacrac ih be prepared. and a negative declaration years:;

mrec n codnewt

3. A small-scale exercise which tests the I 70.22(i) shall follow and maintain in is being issued.

adequacy of communication links.

effect emergency plans approved by the DATES: The rule changes for emergency estabi:shes that response agencies Commission. The licensee may make planning will become effective understand the emergency action levels, and changes to the approved plans without November 3.1910.

tests at least one other component (e.g..

medical or offsite monitoring) of the offsite Commission approval only if such ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final emergency response plan for licensee, State.

changes do not decrease the Environmental Assessment, NUREG and local emergency plans for jurisdications effectiveness of the plans and the plans, 0685. and the comments received by the within the plume exposure pathway EPZ as changed, continue to meet the Commission may be examined in the shall be-conducted at each site at which one requirements of Appendix E Section IV, Cominissions Public Document Room at or more power reactors are located and 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee sha 1717 H Street NW. Washington, D.C.

55114 Federal Register / Vol 45, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations and at local Public Document Rooms.

environmental impact statement will not specified in the regulation that the Single copies of the final Environmental be prepared for these rule changes.

Commission will use in each case to available for purchase through the NRC Analysis of Comments determine whether a shutdown is avaiabl fo purhas thoughtheNRCwarranted.

When considered together.

GPO sales program for $4.25 (USNRC, The groups that submitted comments the laWk of any significant adverse Attention Sales Manager. Washington.

are identified on the Table together with comment from State and local D.C. 20555).

their principal comments. No comments governments, the necessity for FOR FURTHER IFORMATION CONTAct.

were received from State or local Commission action before a plant will Michael T. JamSochian, Office of governments. other Federal agenimes, or be shut don, and the conditions for Standards Development. U.S. Nuclear public interest groups.

whether a shutdown is warranted, all Regulatory Commission. Washington.

The main point oLeach set of argue convincingly that the assumption D.C. 20555, Telephone: (301) 443-5966.

comments was that an Environmental that shutdowns will be i asrequent and of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION On Impact Statement should be prepared short duration is sound. Thus, the January 21, 980 the Nuclear Regulato for the rule changes and that the assumption is retained in the final Commission published a "Draft ry Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment NLTREG Negative Declaration; Finding of No inadequately addresses the 068S and the impacts of extended Signfat Impact"i(45 FRnd39.

JNuary environmental impact of the Emergency shutdowns are not considered valid Significant Impact" (45 FR 3P13. Januar Planning Proposed Rule and the impacts of these rule changes.

21, 1980) for proposed changes to t0 CFR economic and social impacts on U.Steserule Part 50, II 50.33, 50.47. 50.54 and The 14 reconstructed gesrl Appendix E that deal with emergency industry of long-term or.permanent comments and a discussion of each planning requirements for nuclear power premature shutdowns of nuclear plants" fllow:

plants (44 FR 75167, December 19. 1979.

(AEP). The comments have been

1. Three commenters (see Table)

Apdaf nt a AssFR7517,Dessen 99 reconstructed into 14 general criticisms, contend that altenaives to the A draft Environmental Assessmend which have been analyzed for their prposed e

accompanied the draft Negative rlevance to the validity of the addressed They specifically mention Declraton.Thecomm nt erid e ded conclusions in the "Draft Negative alterntire w ys of achieving the same Sixten se mments were Declaration, Finding of No Significant end s asoofiacheithesm Sixten etsof ommnts ereImpct.

knview of the existing safety record of ubtth d dhacve en a

the One matter warrants additional the nuclear industry and the lack of Although all 18 commenters fet that the mention here. An assumption was made effective preparation for the TMI draft Environmental Assessment was in preparation of the DEA that accident the Commission had the inadequate to support the Finding of No shadown of nudear power plants as a following three alternatives from which Significant Impact, the staff analysis result of actions taken under these rule to choose:

does not support this view. The changes would be infrequent and of A. The Commission could take no cominenters suggested that some points short duration, This assumption is immediate action itself while in the draft Enviror nental Assessment critical to the decision that an encouraging other parties. i.e., the were in error, some required much mare Environmental Impact Statement should Congress, other Federal Agencies, the detailed discussion. and some points not be prepared. The basis for this States. and the utilities themselves to had been ignored. The errors have been assumption was that, since State and take effective action. This "no action" the earlier conclusion. The levels of ocal authorities have the responsibility, alternative would be counter to the thetaiane coclsion The leesloy in common with the NRC, to protect Commission's legislative mandate to detail and the omissions are generally pblic health and safety and are protect public health and safety. In fact.

related to the penalties associated with concerned with meeting the energy the TMI accident was a clear indication noncompliance with the nhle. The staff needs of their citizens, it is likely that that this "urging without requiring" originally judged that invocations of the they wi cooperate to ensure the emergency preparedness had proved to noncompliance penalties (i.e., nuclear continued safe operation or timely be ineffective. This alternative clearly power plant shutdown) would be commencement of safe operation of could not stand in the face of the infrequent and of short duration and the nuclear generation capability within Commission's responsibility in this area.

associated impacts would thus be their jurisdiction. The only significant B. The Commission is a regulatory insignificant. Commenters asserted that adverse reaction by the Sate and local agency and has as one of its chief tools there will be frequent and long-term governments that must bear this burden the authority to issue regulations that shutdowns which will have severe has been that complications in funding bind those parties that it regulates. If an impacts which would require detailed of State programs and lead time for effective method for achieving consideration in an Environmental equipment acquisition might make it protection of public health and safety is Impact Statement. The staff analysis has difficult to completely satisfy all of the available through promulgation of supported the judgment of infrequent planning and preparedness regulations with specific requirements short-term shutdowns and thus requirements by the date set forth in the and penalties and conditions governing concludes that no additional detailed proposed rule changes. As a direct result those requirements and penalties, this studies are necessary.

of this, the deadline for plans and should be the proper way for the Minor revisions have been made in implementation has been extended to Couission to proceed.

the environmental assessment reflecting April t 1981. and the deadline for C. if the Commission judged that comments received. but its conclusions having warning systems in place has da.ger to public health and safety was have not been altered. Based on this been extended to July 1, 181. These significant and imminent because of assessment a final determination has extensios should be suffient in most continued operation of existing plants been made by the Director. Office of cases.

while effective regulations are Standards Development, that the It should also be noted that the developed, it had the authority to proposed rule changes will not have a Commission has chosen the alternative impose immediate shutdowns until a signficant impact on the human that requires Commission action to soltion could be found. The safety environment and, therefore, that an initiate a shutdown. Conditions are record of nuclear power, including the

Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55415 TMI accident. does not support an industry-wide judgment of imminent.

significant danger. However, potential does exist for significant harm to the public in the event of a severe accident and the events at TNU suggest that plans must be made to account for this potential problem. Notwithstanding this potential. given the likelihood of an accident requiring off-site emergency protective measures, immediate industry-wide shutdown and the attendant severe long-term impacts are not warranted.

Alternatives A and C are clearly unacceptable. The discussion of alternatives in the Final Environmental Assessment has not been changed from that in the Draft Environmental Assessment.

2. Seven commenters (see Table) assert that the impacts of shutdowns are underestimated and that shutdowns of multiple unit plants or several in the same State were not considered.

BILUNG CODE 759G-601 V*

55416 Fe-deral-Register /Vol. 45. No. 162 /Taesday. Awgust 19, L96O /Rn1a d e lakn

[7590-01j attrix Display of Camenters and Major Comnts Camienters1

~

ajor Coments n

a

1.

Alternatives inadeouately X X addressed

2.

Impacts of shutdowns underestimated (costs) reolacutent o

ue

3.

Health effects of fossil substitution underestimated T

4. Challenct assumption of nreent, s ort-uration shutdowns

- - -T

5.

Judement on State

11. ~

~

u Cost to o (5 n t.

COweration unsubstantiated

6.

Lono-te m imoact not ion addrssed as I

7. Psycholocical and physical risks of false alions note eva 16sted B. Use of fuel-aix improper, veration in cost of reolacement ower

9. Significan"t isoacts due o linkage between approval X

X X I

and continued operation

10.

Proosed rule prior to C

11.

Costs too low (15 minute X

a s a Elcti Warnina System not Included)

12. Mecisions grantina exemdtions of Ne Yok n.tmeuiiis C

orprain tPA She.,O~

Ix~in Lot or res(ption of operation sould beclsfeda Axelred claosiffor two categorical exclusions under Caomnission's NEPA regulations

13. No consideration of costs to utilities X

14. No consideration of plants unde costrutio n de. Consruc t eEin o p n e~ v i i e m n ( o AIF

• e AtmYonds rl Forutheuiltis AE mrca Eectric Power Service Duke

• Duke poweut

)opn CIo*rdo lra Iti tut SPPAT

• Show, Pittman, Ootts A LLL

• Esonectri Lam.

sLiytutce Trowbridge (for eight (fM-eorLab fi e

i utilities) utilities)

U*forteas utilities) 00E

• U. 5. Department of Eneray MU -NorteastutiltiesLNRAST

• Lowenstein. Newmnan, Reis, Axelrod & Toll (for two utilities)

• Federal Register /Vol.

45, No. 162 1 Tuesday, August 19, 1980 Rules and Regulations S5417 The DEA was prepared with the Assessment in any case, it would Since the basis for the assumption of understanding that ever increasing fuel appear that whether these impacts, If infrequent shutdowns has not received prices make it difficult to make stable severe enough, constitute "other substantive challenge from the parties predictions of the costs of replacement compelling reasons" to permit continued directly involved, but there has instead rpwement Whil e indiv l vuesrof operation will be determined in the been activity that tends to confirm the replacement costs may be in error, the individual reviews, assumption, it will remain as a upper end of the range of costs of 3 Four groups comment that health fundamental assumption of the final replacement power, which is compared effects of fossil substitution are Environmental Assessment.

in the Enviro mental Assessment to the underestimated in the draft The availability of replacement costs of compliance, is only changed by EnvironmentalAssessment andthat capacity also hinges on this assumption.

about 36% when the heat rate is changed other effects are goned.

Part of the purpose of reserve capacity as suggested. The response to comment The critical assumption in the draft is replacement during plant outages. As eleven indicates that the costs of and final Environmental Assessment is long as shutdowns are infrequent and of compliance were also underestimated that shutdowns will be infrequent and of short duration, they should fit into this the relative comparison of these two short duration. In such a case, the fossil normal pattern of utilization of costs was used to demonstrate the generating capacity is simply that which replacement capacity. No additional strong economic incentive that exists for is available for normal replacement discussions of this topic have been all parties to strive for effective power during refueling and maintenance prepared for the final Environmental emergency planning and preparedness, outages and would probably be used in Assessment The staff agrees that the net plant eat periods of peak demand until the utility S. Seven commenters contend the rate assumed in the DEA is low and phases it out of the generating system judgment that... it is likely that the therefore changed the assumed heat rate completely. (The impacts are thus ones States will cooperate to assum the from 9,400 Btu/kWb to 11,000 Btu/kW that occur anyway, but at a different contmuedsfe opertion ortimely Accordingly, the cost figures have been time. Short. infrequent shutdowns wil commencement of safe operation of modified in the Final Environmental only change the time period for suffering nuclear generation capability within Assessment; but these modifications do an impact that will most likely be felt their urisdcti on"is unsubstantiated.

not alter the conclusions of the eventually anyway.) For such short-term While this assumption was made in Environmental Assessment.

replacement no new plants will be built.

the absence of first-hand information The question of multiple-plant The draft and final Environmental the experience of the Commission since shutdowns because of a common Assessment accepts these impacts as a December 1979. in attempting to work reason, i.e.. an unacceptable State plan consequence of infrequent and brief with state and local government or multiple units on a site where the shutdowns. (A more accurate analysis officials, has confirmed the accuracy of local plan is unacceptable, is a more might conclude that there is zero this assumption.

difficult problem. The State plans are cumulative impact because the useful pc.

Five commenters assert that only a part of the overall Federal life of the replacement capability is impacts oflong-term shutdowns ae not Emergency Management Agency unaltered.) The discussions in the Final addressed.

(FEMA) program to enhance the ability Environmental Assessment are be infrequent and of short duration of State governments to handle unaltered on this subject.

defines the scope of this Environmental emergencies. The economic incentive for

4. Nine commenters challenged the Assessment. As described above, long the utilities to help the States in every assumption that shutdowns would be AessmentwAs dre abve long way possible should result in the infrequent and of short duration and term shutdowns are not the expected preparation of plans and equipment for questioned the lack of treatment of the these rule changes is timely a nuclear plant emergency that will be a availability ofreplacement capacity, implementatioa of adequate emerxncy sound. significant contribution to the The assumption that shutdowns will plans and proams. The druft and final overall capability of a State to handle be infrequent and of short duration is plnsanme amse drant ad fina many different kinds of emergencies.

critical to the validity of the impacts of this action based on e

The provision of conditions that permit Environmental Assessment. At the time expected colsequences and practical issuance of an operating license or when the Draft Environmental exnsidertons of implementaticm of the continuation of operation, the extension Assessment was prepared, this provisions of the rule changes No of the compliance date and deadline for assumption was based on the assertion analysis of the efyect of long-term warning systems to be in place, and the that State and local governments shutdows has been added to the final record of cooperation from the States up (having in common with NRC the Environmental Assessment.

to the present time make it unlikely that responsibility to protect public health

7. Six commente-s contend that any State's program will be so deficient and safety) will cooperate to provide psychological and physical risks to the that shutdown of all plants in the State fully for protection of the public. Since public of false larms are not evaluated will be required.

that time, the CommissionP in The Emergency Action Level The potential that an unsatisfactory cooperation with FEIMA, has been Guidelines (NIJREG-0elo) recommend local pian might result in the shutdown working diligently to help State and notification of the public when a "Site of all units on a specific site appears to local governments develop satisfactory Emergency" has been declared. The the size and numer of th ng on emergency plans and programs. The expected frequency of an event of this th szead umero te nisresponse of the State and local type is predicted to be I in 100 to I in involved, the incentive of the utility for governiments has conhirmed the validity 5.000 per reactor per year. The high end aiding the local governments is also of the earlier assumption. In addition, no of this range indicates that two such greater. The potential magnitude of the State or local government provided any warnings might occur over the effective impact of shutdown in these cases is comment on the Draft Environmental life (40 years) for every five units. The two to three times greater than for the Assessment thus indicating at least low end indicates one event over the life sile unit case, and this determination tacit agreement with the basis for the of 125 units. Far from causing excessive has been added to the Environmental assumption, psychological and physical risks, this

55418 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations kind of behavior should lead to a more

11. Seven commenters assert that the implement the National Environmental accurate public perception of the true costs of implementation are too low and Policy Act of 1969. The Commission will incidence of risk from nuclear power that there may not be enough time consider this as a comment on the facilities and a more practical and allowed to achieve adequacyin all ongoing rulemaking on 10 CFR Part 51 considered response to an emergency aras of emergency planning and (45 FR 13739).

when one occurs. No change has been preparedness.

13. Two commenters noted that no made in the final Environmental The draft Environmental Assessment consideration was given to the costs to Assessment.

based its estimates of cost of the utilities of those portions of therule

8. Five commenters assert that the use implementation on information changes that ugrade previous onsite of the mix of fuels already in use in the contained in "Beyond Defense in Depth:

requirements.

State is a poor predicter of what would Cost and Funding of State and Local This oversight has been corrected.

be the fuel replacement capacity for a Covernment Radiological Emergency While these costs added a significant specific plant shutdown.

Response Plans and Preparedness in increment to the total cost of A generic assessment must make Support of Commercial Nuclear Power implementation, this total cost is still some averaging assumptions or become Stations," NUREG-o553, October 1979.

low compared to the reference costs of.

hopelessly lost in detail. In this case, the This report did not consider the costs of (1) replacement power, (2) tax and fee commenters are correct that this is a a warning system that would effectively burden, and (3) capital investment.

.gross assumption." It is, however, warn everyone within 10 miles within 15 While several of the cost figures in the sufficient to establish the range of costs minutes of the time when the decision to fnal Environmental Assessment have for replacement power, which is the way warn the public is made. The costhee cos ed u changed the detailed information was used. No estimates in the draft Environmental bee rvs ed ucan of change has been made in the mix of Assessment thus do not include the and the conclusions of the fuels used to generically assess the costs of 15-minute notification. The Environmental Assessment are range of costs of replacement power.

estimates provided by the commenters uchanged.

9. Five commenters observe that all of have been used to revise the cost

14. One commenter observed that the significant impacts are due to estimate in the final Environmental there is no consideration given to plants linkage between adequacy of emergency Assessment. It should be noted that all under construction.

plans and continued plant operation.

cost figures are approximate and are The cost estimates were forecast for These commenters agree that the only intended to give an estimate of the all plants scheduled to be operating by impacts of compliance are insignificant normal magnitude of costs and fees the time the rule was to become and that if there were no penalty associated with building and operating a effective. To go beyond this period associated with 'inadequate emergency nuclear power plant. Significant would only complicate the estimates preparedness then an Environmental variations from these costs for with future costs of greater uncertainty.

Assessment or no Environmental individual cases should be expected The purpose here was to present an Assessment would be appropriate. The These changes do not affect the earlier approximation of the relative thrust of the rule is to protect the public conclusions of the draft Environmental significance of the cost impacts to through adequate emergency planning.

o Assessment determine whethea more detailed The thrust of the shutdown provision is In response to comments that more analysis is necessary. The relative to protect the public in the event that time might be needed, the deadline for magnitude of these costs is well adequate provision has not been and is plans and implementation to be established by the information at hand not being made to provide adequate completed has been extended to April 1.

and these are clearly sufficient to emergency planning and preparedness.

1981, and the deadline for installation of support a decision without the The decision of how the public should warning systems has been extended to preparation on environmental impact be protected has been made, i.e., either July 1, 1981 to allow for procurement statement.

emergency planning and preparedness is problems. Appropriate changes have adequate or a plant may be placed in a been made in the Environmental Dated at Bethesda. Maryland. this th day condition of safe shutdown. The State beenof August 1980.

and local authorities have the Assessment but the earlier conclusions For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

responsibility to determine which option

12. One commenersuggestedthat Robert B. Min.~ue, is in the best interest of their citizens.

deci. sions on shutdowns, allowing Director. Office of Standards Development The linkage remains in the effective rule continued operation despite inadequate S. NuclearRegulatory Commission.

changes. No additional discussion has plans, or the resumption of operation e n DwEI..Z5248 iled 18-M 43.m been provided in the final pfter a shutdown should be listed in 10 BRIM COOl nftO-v Environmental Assessment.

CFr Part 51 as a categorical exclusion.

10. Two commenters observed that The categorical exclusions in Part 51 the proposed rule was issued prior to are those Commission actions that have the expanded role of FneMar in been judged as a class not to have any eme ency planning for nuclear power significant environmental impact and

plants, thus have been excluded from further The NRC and FDAA are working consideration under those portions of closely to establish and carry out their coirion re ortions of respective roles in emergency planning the Commission's regulations that for nuclear power plants. The effective rule has been changed to reflect this

• Northeast Utilities indicated cotsa as much as rule ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~~.

ha encagdt elc hs Utmes those quoted in the Enironmnental change in relationship between the two Assessment but also cited unusual complications agencies. However, the substantive such as large numbers of local governments that provisions of the rule have not changed.

escalated their costs. Since this single estimate was not confirmed by other State or utility commenters, only the parties responsible for specific the values were considered beyond the usual rane actions.

of costs.