ML16341C225
| ML16341C225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1984 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Dircks W, Plaine H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 M841004B, NUDOCS 8410160745 | |
| Download: ML16341C225 (22) | |
Text
r p,S Egg 0
.r C
Q4) nO wv n +a*++
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D.C. 20555 October 5,
1984
<cs IN RESPONSE r PLEASE REFER TO:
M841004B MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations Herzel H.E. Plaine, General unsel FROM:
SUBJECT:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretar STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFI AND VOTE, 1:00 P.M.,
THUR
- 1984, COMMISSIONERS'ONF OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC AT N/DISCUSSION OCTOBER 4, NCE ROOM, D.C.
NDANCE)
I.
SECY-84-352 Diablo Can on Joint Intervenors'e uest for a Hearin on Pacific Gas and Electric s
Re uest for an Extension of the Low-Power License The Commission, by a 5-0 vote, approved an order denying the request. by Joint Intervenors for a hearing on PGGE's request for an extension of the low-power license.
(Subsequently, on October 5, 1984 the Secretary signed the Order.)
II.
SECY-84-358 Petition for Sta of Part 70 License The Commission in response to a petition by Robert Anthony on behalf of Friends of the Earth, approved by a 5-0 vote, an order denying a stay of a license amendment permitting Philadelphia Electric Company to move irradiated fuel inside the reactor building.
(Subsequently, on October 5, 1984 the Secretary signed the Order.)
III.
SECY-84-350 Denial of Petition for Rulemakin Concernin Emer enc Plannin and Res onse for Trans ortation Accidents Involvin Radioact2.ve Materials (PRM-71-6)
The Commission, by a 5-0 vote, approved a Federal Register Notice denying a petition for rulemaking which had requested that the Commission adopt regulations requiring NRC licensees be held responsible for emergency planning and response for transportation accidents involving radioactive material.
The Commission notice of the denial notes that the issues raised have been overtaken by subsequent Federal actions.
~8410160745 g4gpO5
(',". PDR -iOCFR PT9. 7
'PD'R'"
The Commission in approving also agreed to the following modifications to the notice and letters to the petitioners and Congressional committees:
1.
The Federal Register Notice and letters should be revised as noted in the attached mark-up.
2.
In addition the Federal Register Notice and letters should be modified to include an explanation of the reasons that it took the Commission so long to complete action on the petition and on the actions taken by*the Commission during the period since its submittal.
The revised Federal Register Notice should be forwarded for signature and publication in the Federal Register.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
10/31/84) cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal.
Commissioner Zech Commission Staff Offices PDR Advance DCS 016 Phillips
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 71 Critical Mass Energy Project, et al.
')Docket No. PRM-71-6]
~ Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Concerning Emergency Planning and Response for Transportation Accidents Involving Radioactive Materials AGENCY:
Nuclear. Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Denial of Petition f'r Rulemaking.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear'egulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a'etition for rulemaking (PRM-71-6) from Richard P. Pollock of the Critical Mass Energy Project on behalf'f the Critical Mass Energy Project,'Congressman Theodore S.
Weiss (NY) 'and Timothy E. Wirth (CO), and 11 citizen organi"
$A5>5 <t N 5(0~
gA15$ 5 5g 'THE PCi I> I>>C<5 hRV< ItEErJ DVEAf<~A Qg SI1giSQhk~.ggfipp'zations~
The petitioners requested that the NRC adopt regulations ig four areas pertaining.to the transp'ortation of radioactive materials.
s ou&mdd~~e
'~wl'
'o 4
.fjE HRC HM cRREsvLL'f codsJBEAEQ
>VE asvins elISrd /h'~E Pcfif4' R4 >A'cw8~d PERErA~ /)Q A/S FREED 7VE
./h Ip 80(Duu7
/rC Rggi+r<g 9 $ FcIEr+<V c ~ rRE 4wFpJ QH ~cd F4fr 0~~4 Ip~
ADDRESSES:
Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments ZOgisc'.<-
- thereon, and the NRC's letter of denial are available for public inspec-tion and copying in the NRC Public Document
- Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC.
Enclosure 1
~ Reasons for Denia The petition'ers'oncerns basically relate to that portion of trans-portation when radioactive materials are in the care of the carriers.
The Congress has authorized both the NRC and the OOT to regulate the transportation of radioactive materials.
These two agencies have agreed, by Memorandum of Under standing
{executed June 8, 1979), to partition theh regulatory responsibilities.
Generally, the DOT is responsible for regulating safety in transportation of all hazardous materials, including radioactive materials, and the NRC is responsible for review and approval of package designs for fissile materials and for other radioactive mate" rials in quantities exceeding type A limits, as defined in 10 CFR Part 71.
The HRC has considered the petition, the public comments thereon, the conclusions reached by the NRC/DOT study group, the DOT's rules on highway routing and financial responsibility, and other related infor-mation and has Ca/<cvdZ4 THm C'
c UJ'VZJ I?AGED lh PW PE<W>> fygy'E ggEJ Sy~~~zg jyEgq yriEJ.pg.pig py SUSSEX'~E~
FE dauda 1C 'ra
~ ggE &I-u?<IIII:biSCOSX)oltI gng~g5g~ Crap
~Ac~ O part 1:
The'se of special routes for the transportation of radio active materials of all types to ensure that the shipments avoid densely populated areas and mountainous"terrain'his ..issue has
~f. DEI' g'f It5Poefkftord> 4lWI<4 IS 7/Z been considered in a rulemak1ng proceeding bye FEbf~RA~.HsF~~< >~~,
lH~y m&0 juri sdi ct1on The Mater ial s Transportation A
Bureau of the Department of Transportation has co ucted a rulemaking
~ SC'~Eg Chig Ktu. ~a<g ~i) R Cb'.
proceeding on highway routing of radioactive mater 1pmen hei oj. gPk ~~"
final rule was published on January 19,
- 1981, and became effective ogVE<<~<~~",~q'~
February 19, 1982.:Th'e final rule was challenged by the City of New Y
.-VRE goof go(E~~'nd the State of New York and was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
On February 27, 1984, the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to review the Circuit Court's decision.
The result of the Supreme Court's action was to g1ve val1dity to the DOT highway routing regulations as promulgated.
The DOT rule requires carriers to use an interstate highway or an alternate "preferred route" that minimizes radiological risk.
The DOT rule was based in'art on, NRC advice and studies concerning transportation Enclosure 1
~ m
'isks and was subject both to considerable public review and deliberation and to judicia.l scrutiny.
The NRC does not believe it is necessary to require further restrictions beyond the DOT rule.
Part Z:
The adoption of emergency plans for transportation acci-dents involving radioactive'aterials, including (a) the organization of'mergency response units to carry out the plan and (b) semiannual drills with local and State law enforcement officials.
~ ~
The NRC considers the public health and safety to be adequately protected by current requirements for emergency response.
Several organizations are involved in emergency response to 'transportation accidents:
State and local per-sonnel such as fire and police are. responsible for emergency actions immediately following an accident; shippers are responsible for providing shipment hazard information; carriers are responsible for isolating and cleaning up the spi lied radioactive materials; and certain Federal agencies are responsible for providing assistance to State and local governments.
At the Federal level, the. Federal Emergency Nanagement Agency (FEiQ) coordinates such Federal assistance; the DOT and NRC pro-le *<<Faa; d
h DOE i
i di teams that respond to radiological emergencies when requested.
It is not practicable nor necessary to require shippers to dupl'icate the existing immediate emergency response capabilities to respond to the scene of a transportation accident.
The NRC/DOT study group considered the question of carrier's and~~
shipper s emergency plans for transportation accidents.
The study group s"," ',. ~ =
found that, in general, the carrier (transporter) is responsible for proper care of cargo in transit; In an accident, the carrier is respon-I sible for notifying the shippers and government authorities, isolating any spilled material from the public, and cleaning up any spilled materi al.
- Since, in many cases, the carrier will have neither the technical expertise nor the experience and equipment to handle radioactive mate-rials, the carrier may find it necessary to make arrangemengwith others to accomplish these duties.
The carrier could make contractual arrange-ments with the shipper or any other organization that is capable of Enclosure I
Part 3:
The assumption by licensees of financial responsibility
-for any shipping accident that involves the dispersal of radioactive materi al s ~
The HRC the liability for damages should be determined by the courts considering both the appli" cable State tort law and the particular circumstances associated with the accident.
If the origin or destination of the radioactive material being trans" ported were a facility (for example, a nuclear power plant) for which the NRC required the licensee to have and maintain financial protection, the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act (Sec. 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) would ensure a source of funds up to $585 million for personal injury or property damage resulting from the transportation accident.
The Price-Anderson Act does not preempt applicable State tort law, but in the event of an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" a facility licensee may be required to waive certain defenses that would otherwise be available.
Section 30 of'he "Motor'Carrier Act of 1980" (Pub.
L.96-296, as amended by Sec. 406 of Pub.
L.97-424) requires the Secretary of Transpor-
~ tation, among other things, to establish regulations on minimum levels of financial responsibility for the transportation of hazardous. materials by motor. vehicles.
The rule impl.ementing this'provision on minimum finan-s cial responsibility was published by DOT on June 11, 1981 (46 FR 30974)
(I and subsequently amended on February 7, 1983 (48 FR 5560),
on June 28, 1983 (48 FR'29699),
and on July 2, 1984 (49 FR 27288).
For radioacti~e
.',.","-,=.
materials, the minimum. levels of f&ancial responsibil sty are $1 million '..'";.
($5 million effective Jan'uary 1, 1985) for any vehicle transporting large quantities of radioactive materials and
$500,000
($1 million effective January 1, 1985) for transporting radioactive materia'Is in other than large quantities.
Aside from the question of ultimate financial responsibility, the carrier should be p'repared to assume the initial costs required to.dis-charge its responsibilities in performing emergency response actions such as confining or cleaning up the spills.
In terms of costs for emergency or protective actions that may be taken by the State or local govern-mental
- agencies, these agencies can reasonably be expected to be prepared Enclosure 1
to assume initial costs incurred as in other emergency situations such as fires and'loods.
Part 4:
A plan for informing the drivers of the vehicles about the nature of the material they are shipping and emergeRcy actions they should undertake in the event of an accident.
The NRC considers existing DOT regulations for driver information to be adequate.
Present DOT regulations require that a shipment of radioactive materials be accom-panied by a description of each radionuclide contained in the shipment including:
the name and radioactivity of. each radionuclide, the physical and chemical
- forms, and other information regarding labels, external radiation levels, and fissile class (49 CFR 172.203).
These requirements involve a system of labels for packages, placards for vehicles, shipping paper descriptions, and other package markings.
'n the final rule on highway routing of radioactive materials pub-lished by DOT in January 1981 (46 FR 5298), specific training requirements are mandated for persons transporting large quantities of radioactive materials.
The training includes, among other things, a requirement that the cd'iver receive trasnsng.
on properties and hazards of the"'radioactive material. transported'nd procedures to be followed in case of accidents or other emergencies.
In view of the DOT requirements, there does not appear to be a need for NRC to require shippers to provide and carriers to maintain c~~
toeeeinert additional detailed emergency procedures for the driver to undertake in.case. of accident.
5~~<+ egqp or vjle g~g+ QAIJEg / v:sr'a< r~H rv'os ElEEd uodsrAnrvzzf Rcsosrr>
, the NRC has denied this petition.
Dated at Washington, DC this day of 1984.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
10 Enclosure 1
PRM"71-6 Mr. Richard P. Pollock, Director Critical Mass Energy Project P.O.
Box 1538 Mashington, D.C. 20013
Dear Mr. Pollock:
~Ax/Cr ~
~ice C En;~j.M
~E<< +K Qt>4c~srio~
L-E~Zm This refers to your letter, dated October 31, 1977, petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend.its regulations concerning emergency planning and response for transportation accidents involving radioactive
~-.<<,~,.gg~ liRC Has ca.<<"~'<<>><>><<~4 mace ~swHE tSs0g~
pg<stct IH Pout.?E~'
yO CONC L.P > tS z E.AN 0P
g8jib~) tH Wf tE'f/1'ttdR-'
k !'-
f
~.."
I Q
(a)
The Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted a rule on highway routing of radioactive materials requiring carriers to use an interstate highway or an alternate route hat'minimizes radiological risk.
The DOT rule was based in part on NRC advice and studies concerning transportation risks and was subject both to considerable public review and deliberation and to judicial scrutiny.
The NRC does not believe it is necessary to require further restrictions beyond the DOT rule.
(b)
Several organizations are responsible for responding to transportation accidents:
State and local personnel such as fire and police for emer gency actions immediately following the accidents; shippers for providing shipment hazard information; carriers for isolating and cleaning up the spilled radioactive mater'ials; and Federal agencies for providing assis-tance to State and local governments.
At the Federal level, the Federal
I 'r. Richard P. Pollock Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates such Federal assistance; the DOT and NRC provide assistance to FEMA; and the Department of Energy (DOE) maintains radiologjcal assistance teams that respond to radiological
)Pp hO.C OELQVEf ~flW emergencies when requested.
gt is not practicable for necessary to require shippers to duplicate the immediate emergency response capabilities to respond to the scene of a transportation accident.
(c)
The ultimate determination of financial liability'for damages resulting from transportation accidents is made by the courts.
Under the Motor Carrier Act of 1S80, as
- amended, the DOT adopted a rule requiring motor carriers to establish minimum financial requirements for mattters such as cleanup after accidents; (d)
The DOT requires shippers to provide descriptions of radioactive mate-rials in each package.
In. the routing ru'le, the DOT requires additional driver training, including procedures to be followed in case of accidents.
"The HRC "co'ncTudes,"'as more fullydisc'uss'ed in the encTosed"l=e'de'ral Register'pss is'~> Aatah 4Y yOtt'R, tC<rri~d HRVZ i7EW CWSrl~aSCl p~g Notice, thaQ
<Va~rs~r VC~y gC cqaa 8S'iSC ~swap,-ABC YZ saxi'as been denied.
Sincerely, There fore, your petition I
~
~ '>>'lai Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice
NRC DENIES PETITION TO AMEND REGULATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS QE~tgyc The'Huclear Regulatory Commission has denied a petition the n
T agency amend its regulations on'the transportation of radioactive materials~o< ~e emi-l55~ES R.Ql5Q gg <pE 'pE<~l >4645 hdVE SEE 4 S pAf~rfA'f'fVELQ that the 2 GS" < "~
3'l Sv~~<~VV~
i EDarcpc.
Hcm Critical Mass Energy Project, Rep. Theodore S. Meiss (New York), Rep.
Timothy E. Mirth (Colorado) and eleven citizen.organizations from nine states and the District of Columbia submitted the petition in November 1977, asking that the HRC amend its regulations to impose four conditions on licensees.
I'
~
The NRC noted that actions have been taken in the same four areas mentioned by the petitioners, although the actions do not necessarily.'place requirements on NRC licensees.
The conditions sought by the petitioners and related practices and requirements already in existence are:
(1) Special routes should be used for the transportation of radioactive materials to ensure that the shipments avoid densely populated areas and mountainous terrain.
'C
3 (3) Licensees should be required to assume'inancial responsibility for any shipping accide'nt that involves the dispersal of radioactive materials.
~>qg t.O+~>iqsig 'gE<<EBS
~AS 7 O'E UiR/7/~lg 0$ 4g>"~ E'0, $ 900l 0 ZPDc~F<~y'.-"
COVS ibei2>8$
FATH' H~
rVPCtCA3CC ~y,wE
~i2P ~gg
'~~a' lg.C 4 W WAQag f~<~p + cd Us >N l HF HC Cz/~jM or 9nder the Motor Carrier
. '&< Cmi~uzrpa ~ops r~pr Act of.1980, DOT pub'lished a rule requiring motor carriers to establish.
IP minimum financial requirements for matters such as cleanup after accidents.
(4) A plan should be adopted to inform the drivers of vehicles about the nature of the material they are shipping and emergency actions they should undertake in case 'of an accident.
Tn response to this 'suggested
- change, the NRC noted that DOT requires shippers to provide descriptions of radioactive materials in each package.
In its highway routing rule, DOT requires additional driver training, including procedures to be followed in. case of accidents.
The eleven citizen organizations that submitted the petition joiiit1y kith.-,':
the congressmen and Critical Mass Energy Project are California Citizen Action
- Group, based in Sacramento; Community Action Research
- Group, Ames, I'owa; Environmental Action of Colorado, based in Denver; Massachusetts Public Interest Research
- Group, Boston and Amherst; Michigan Public Interest Research Group, Lansing; National Intervenors, Incorporated, Washington, D.C.;
New York Friends of'he Earth, New York City; New York Public Interest Research
- Group, Hew York City; North Carolina Public Interest Research Group, Charlotte; South~est Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Yermont Public Interest Research Group, Montpelier.
r