ML19211A116
| ML19211A116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/03/1979 |
| From: | Charles Brown NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-79-591, NUDOCS 7912170054 | |
| Download: ML19211A116 (53) | |
Text
97 p Extwi e Q
') Transcript of Proceedings k,
/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON SECY-79 -591 - PLANS FOR COPING WITH EMERGENCIES AT PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES (Open to Public Attendance)
Monday, December 3, 1979 s
159.6 001 Pages 1 - 51 Prepared by:
C. H. Brown Office of the Secretary 70 Of
>79121
L
+
x 1
+
4 r
!i DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Urrited States i
Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on December 3, 1979 in the i
Comission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D..
C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript I
has not ' ten reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for gener'il infomational purpcses.
i As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of tne formal or-informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in i
this transcript do not necessarily reflect final deteminations or i
beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may. be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addrested to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
+
5 1596 002 o
l 1
1 Il 1,
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
Discussion on SECf-79-591 - Plans for Coping with Emergencies at Production and 4
i Utilization Facilities 5
(Open to Public Attendance) 6 l
Commissioner's Conference Room 7
1717 H Street, N.W.
I Washington, D. C.
8 Monday, December 3, 1979 9
10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice at 2:10 p.m.,
11 l
Joseph Hendrie, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
13 i
Chairman Hendrie 14 Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford 15 Commissioner Ahearne 16 ALSO PRESENT:
L. Bickwit E. Hanrahan 15(16 0UJ 18 "7
J.
Hoyle M. Malsch 19 M. Chopko J. Aron 20 K. Goller B. Grimes 21 M. Jamgochian 22
~
23 24 25
i 2
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission maets this 3
morning in a continuation of meetings of last week ---
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This morning?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Did I say this morning?
- Well, 6
meets this afternoon, I'll amend that.
7 Some of us do run on later schedules than others, 8
however.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but I thought I ran 10 on the latest of all.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The subject is the emergency 12 planning role.
Considerable progress has been made in this 13 area.
I refuse to ascribe that to my absence last week, and 14 we have before us a version so current that the paper smokes 15 from the machine and has numerous handwritten edits in it 16 which seem to me, for the most part, to improve the matter.
17 I don' t know whether Commissioners have had a 18 chance to go through the edits in detail.
I have had a look 19 at them, have a couple of questions and not much beyond that.
20 Would you prefer to page through it, ask the 21 General Counsel what he has written here on -- He shakes 22 his head.
I think we'd better not.
(
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm prepared to vote.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have one question.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we deal with some 1596 004
I e
I l
3 i
1 l
\\
questions.
\\
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But mine is on the very 3
last page, so if anybody wants to start ---
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, mine start at page 3.
5 Under No. 1, about three-quarters of the way down 6
the page, under this option, it says:
"The Commission can 7
grant an exemption from this requirement..."
et_ cetera, 8
and then there is a list of three things that might be the basis for an exemption, and I see that the word "or" is 10 scratched, and that kind of editing occurs also on page 4, 11 and I guess some place else.
12 I simply want to understand that that's improving 13 the use of the English language here and does not imply that 14 these possible bases for exemption are now becoming in series 15 rather than parallel, that' indeed, an exemption might be 16 granted "if" ---
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it does say "or" in 18 the,last ---
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It does say "or" and we read it 20 then to be a set of three possible bases, anyone of which 21 might serve, if that's everybody's understanding.
22 MR. BICKWIT: That is our intention, either 1, 2, or
(
23 3,
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If that's our understanding, I 25 have no objection at all to the improvement, and I agree, in 1596 005
f 4
1 1
fact, that the normal usage.i the language would indicate 2
its removal at that point.
s 3
I had only one other and it was on page 14.
4 Anybody before then?
5 MR. BICKWIT:
I have one that begins on page 13.
l 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Begins on page 13, all right.
7 MR. BICKWIT:
This is a matter -- I have had a 8
chance to raise it with Commissioner Ahearne, but with no 9
other Commissioners.
10 Our feeling is that the discussion that begins on 11 the bottom of page 13 and running through the middle of 15, 12 doesn't correctly characterize the differences between the i
alternatives, because some of the references to Alternative A 13 i
I 14 are equally applicable to Alternative B.
15 Namely, the basic criteria that would be used for 16 deciding whether a plant ought to be allowed to continue in 17 Operation, and it seemed to us that that ought to be said, 18 and we have drafted some alternative language that would make 19 that clear that in the case of each alternative, the criteria 20 for continued operation ought to be the same.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And my disagreement with 22 the General Counsel, really, is the way that this has come T
23 about is that there was a set of language to describe one 24 alternative.
I proposed an alternative which was different 25 than that, and in that proposal, I believed that it was 1596 006
l 5
I 1
i appropriate to retain the language.dlat was originally
(
2 written to characterize the one alternative as applying only 3
to that one alternative.
And I still believe that there is 4
a fundamental philosophical difference between the two 5
alternatives, and I'm concerned that the language written 6
l for the one originally still carries with it the character f
7 L of the one.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I would agree that there is a 9
philosophical difference between the alternatives, but it 10 doesn't manifest itself in a difference in substantive 11 j criteria.
And this gives the impression, as presently l
drafted, it gives the impression that it does.
12 l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, as I mentioned to the 13 14 General Counsel, since it was a description of the alternative which I was not in favor of, I would have no 15 16 problem if he just dropped all of that language.
17 MR. BICKWIT:
I would prefer not to drop all of 18 that language, but I would strongly prefer dropping it to 19 leaving it in its present state.
The reason I would prefer not to drop it is that 20 it seems a healthy thing, and from a legal and a disclosure 21 22 standpoint, to specify why it is after a description of the dangers associated with inadequate emergency planning, that
('
23 you would want to keep up in the face of plans which have 24 not been concurred in.
25 1596 007
l 6
1 1
j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see, Len, your
{
2 point is that that language is an adequate description of 3
Alternative A, but also encompasses parts of B?
4 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
When you are talking 5
about the reasons for permitting a plant to continue to 6
operate, these are reasons which are adopted by Alternative B.
7 COMMISSIONER BFADFORD:
So what, your propo' sed 8
change would be to put something in there, a Footnote or 9
something saying that this --
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, it would'have some language.
there are features of COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
11 l
Alternative B.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Actually, I think he prcposed 13 14 l
to write it so that it was, in theory, applying to both 15 Alternatives, those at that stage which I was having 16 l difficulty seeing how that could'be done.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where are you?
What 17 l
18 language are you talking about?
MR. BICKWIT:
We are talking about the references 19 n page -- Primarily the reference is on page 14, to ---
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where are they?
21 MR. BICKWIT:
At the top.
22 "Unless there is a compelling safety reason that
(
23 w uld prohiF?.t operation, the NRC may properly weigh these 24 Consequences in deciding whether to permit reactor operations.
1596 008
7 1
lThisalternativereflectstheviewthattheincrementof risk involved in permitting operations in the absence of 2
ncurred-in plans is not undue in every case."
3 (Commissioner Kennedy arrived at the meeting, 2:15.)
4 MR. BICKWIT:
The implication is that when you 5
ar talking about Alternative B, that this cannot be said 6
for Alternative B.
In fact, it applies to Alternative B, 7
in ur view, to the same degree that it applies to Alternative 8
A.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, given that one is leaving open the possibility of an exemption, you are, in effect, accepting this point of view.
MR. BICKWIT:
That's our point.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, I guess I agree with that.
I'm not sure I would put it quite the way it is put here.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, what language would you propose?
MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I'm afraid Commissioners 19 haven' t seen this language, but I'll distribute it ---
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I haven't even heard it.
I'm 21 anxious.
22 MR. BICKWIT: There has been just no time to ---
(Mr. Bickwit passes out the document.)
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you have got one more, why I 25 1596 009 I
8 1
think I have over distributed to the ---
2 MR. BICKWIT:
I have a few more for anyone who is interested.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, where does it ---
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This replaces what?
6 MR. BICKWIT:
At the top it says, "In lieu of 7
discussion starting on last paragraph of page 13 through 8
the first paragraph of page 15..."
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So instead of "It is important...
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
We start with: "Both 11 alternatives reflect the view... "
12 (Pause while Commissioners read the propose'd change. )
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that 3.t 14 basically goes without saying, this is a problem you have 15 everytime you impose any new requirement, and we've opened 16 the possibility of an exemption.
As there is for every 17 regulation and rule, unless we would initially state 18 tha.t no exemptions will be permitted under any circumstances, 19 and I don't think that ever happens.
20 MR. BICKWIT: Well, as I said, I would prefer to 21 leave all of this out, to adopting the language that you 22 have in here, because while it may go without saying that 23 there will be exemptions in each case ---
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
It doesn't go without 25 saying there will be exemptions, it goes without saying ---
1596 010
9 f
1 MR. BICKWIT: The basis for it.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- that the possibility 3
is lef t open.
4 MR. BICKWIT: That's right.
Well, by discussing 5
these exemptions, only with respect to Alternative A, you 6
give the impression when you are talking about Alternative B 7
that there is no basis for similar exemptions.
And it is 8
that that I find objectionable.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So you are suggesting a 10 second best course would be to take it out of Alternative A?
11 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's fine with me.
l 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Me too.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Where would it take out from, and to?
15 16 "It is important..."
I guess, down to where?
MR. BICKWIT:
Well, what we could do is take 17 18 everything out and -- I think it is probably best to just 19 take everything out.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, b:t to where?
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You've got to stop somewhere.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm not sure but what you 22 are right, that the entire thing can go and we wouldn't loose
[
23 anything, but we are beyond daat point.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would be just to the end of ---
25 1596 011
10 l
l l
1 MR. BICKWIT:
That crossed my mind.
(
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- end of the paragraph ---
3 MR. BICKWIT:
The first paragraph on page 15.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Paragraph where?
Page what?
5 MR. BIT' 7:
Fifteen.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Fifteen?
7 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, no.
The end of the 9
first paragraph on 15?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
11 Just eliminate that discussion of the comparison 12 between the alternatives.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, because there is no 14 other -- I don' t think there is any other description, at 15 least ---
16 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, there has at the beginning of ---
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That particular insert, 18 I know doesn't exist anywhere else, because that was an 19 insert that I wrote in for ---
20 MR. BICKWIT:
No, I'm not saying it doesn't add 21 anything, I'm saying I would rather have it out than leave 22 it the way it is.
I would prefer what I have handed you.
(
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I know, but you are 24 now striking, it is not only the rationale, but you are 25 also striking the process.
1596 012
11 1
l MR. BICKWIT: Well, I think something that can be 2
draf ted that -- to leave intact the differences-between 3
the notice provisions and the difference between the 4
procedures without referring to criteria.
5 Our objection is that there is no difference 6
between the criteria.
This gives the impression that there 7
is, and if we simply eliminate the reference to the criteria, 8
I think we can draft something.
It has to be redrafted.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, ought the public to 10 have some notion -- If we have some notion of what the 11 criteria are, shouldn't the public have that notion?
i Aean, 12 when did we decide that we should conduct thes,e -- I withdraw i
13
{
this.
1 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's another proceeding.
14 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I forgot.
That is the 16 star chamber has been accepted as the basic principle of 17 Operation.
I'm sorry.
I was outvoted on that one.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was going to suggest 18 19 that if we can approve the rest of this document, we just 20 leave a hole there subject to OGC's coming up with an 21 agreed-upon statement of the difference in the two proposals 22 in this area, with the hope that we wouldn' t have to meet 23 again on it.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, that's fine, but I think the 25 Comnission ought to resolve the question raised by 1596 013
1l l
12 1
1 I
1 Commissioner Kennedy, which is:
"Do you want to refer to 6
i
(
2 the criteria here and give a basis for why you have adopted 3
j them for both alternatives?"
4 CHAIRh*AN HENDRIE: God, yes.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was assuming "yes".
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This is going to be a 7
l complicated enough piece of thing that you are asking on --
8 for which you are asking for comment, even though the 9
comment period is long enough to try to give the peopl6 a
10 chance to reflect on it, to have a number of things in mind 11 here at this table, which we are not that far from 1
12 i
agreement on, and not to lay them out in the formal t
i l
Publication, it would be very unfortunate, I think.
I 13 l
think clearly, we want to describe the criteria and some:df 14 15 the rationale behind it, and ---
16 MR. BICKWIT:
I agree with that view ---
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- On a thirty-second reading, 18
. I don'.t have any trouble with the paper that you just passed n
i down as the way to do it, John, since you were the 19 20 objector on this, tell me what ---
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
I would strike the 21 first sentence, which just sounds to me like something 22 that -- When you start saying it stands to reason something
(
23 24 cannot simply be done, I d'n' t like the flavor of that sentence.
25 1596 014 B
i l
t l
l 13 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I mean, it's.true.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it -- Something that I
3 can't simply be done carries ---
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do we need the word 5
" simply"?
I mean, that has the air of -- for the frivolous 6
action, it sounds to me like.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Why don't you just start:
8 "Under both alternatives, if the deficiencies are not 9
significant for the particular power plant, the NRC is 10 satisfied there is adequate protection for the public health 11 and safety through alternative means, for example..."
12 as you say:
... excellent local emergency plans in l conjunction... or there :are other compelling reasons" ---
13 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does an "... excellent 15 local emergency plan..."?
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I didn't write that.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Do we know what that is?
18 MR. BICKWIT: That is better than an average one.
19 I really don' t know the origin of that sentence.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That was a question -- I wasn't 21 sure that that was the right word, but could we postpone 22 discussion of that word until we deal with the larger r
23 subject?
t 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In principle, except for 25 the word, that sounds fine to me.
I agree with John.
1596 015
14 1
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
the right
~-
2 phrase is that the plant would not be re"m.. f o be shut-3 down, but there is a distinction '
the one case, at least 4
in my alternative, the licensee wo :1d have to show that.
5 He would have to demonstrate those.
6 MR. BICKWIT: That's right.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't the basic difference 8
that there is a different threshold for continued 9
operation of the plant.
You are setting up a stiffer 10 condition in one alternative, and a lesser condition than 11 the other alternative.
12 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think that's correct.
13 I think what you are doing is setting up a 14 different procedure.
The conditions are the same.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think, in effect, that 16 it is ---
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That was my impression of 18 what was written before.
I thought that's what it was 19 supposed to be conveying.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think that's what it was 21 conveying, but I disagree as a practical matter you are 22 setting up a different ---
/
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think, as a practical 24 matter you are setting up a different condition, and that ---
25 MR. BICKWIT:
You may, as a practical matter, reach 1596 016
15 1
different results.
I think the conditions are. the same.
(
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If they are not,.if they 3
are not intended to be, what is written here does not 4
convey the difference.
5 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, how ---
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If nothing else, it comes 7
at a different point in time, and it is a more ---
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me put it this way, Len, 9
I would agree that under my alternative, the licensee must 10 demons trate.
And essentially what he must demonstrate are 11 those kinds of things.
12 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
13 Well, why don' t we try our hand at something at 14 accords with your objectives and distribute it around this 15 afternoon.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, in accord with both 17 alternatives, people whose responsibility it is.
18 MR. BICKWIT: Well, we are going to draft this.
19 I think our objectives will be satisfied.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the common objective is the clear statement of the difference of the author, 21 22 that s right.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
(
23 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'd like to see the first 25 sentence or some appropriate form of it included.
1596 017
16 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The first sentence of what?
1 2
This insert?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Both alternatives, I don't 4
know.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree with Vick l'
6 that we delete the word " simply" which gives a frivolous i
7 flavor which wasn't intended or wouldn't be intended.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But that is, in fact, the basis 9
that you would consider are willing to have a role which
?
10 lallowsexemptionsunderonealternativeortheother 11 courses under the other, and it seems to me appropriate to 12 say it.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No.
I think I would 14 delete the sentence, but as a first choice, as an alternative, 15 I would much rather focus on the users of the power than 16 the people living around the plants, the people who would 17 feel disruptive consequences.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now, what is the relationship 20 to the finding at the operating license stage, and the fact 21 that if you shut down a facility there are disruptivu 22 consequences or there are consequences to people living
(
23 or using the power.
24 I mean, this has a bit of the flavor that we 25 hear -- of messages that we get from some quarters that if 1596 018
I I
lJ 17 I
1 l you found that it was safe once, why isn't it safe today i
2 and why are you making any changes.
I don't really see l
3 the connection between the two thoughts here.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Gee, it never occurred to 5
me that they would be seen the same way, Vick. It is one l
6 thing to make the statement, which it seems to me would not j
il 7
4, be an acceptable one, certainly not from my point of view, I
8
' that if it is safe yesterday, it is safe today.
It is quite 9
another thing to say, if they needed the power yesterday, 10 the probability is they need the power today, unless 11 I
somebody put up another power plant in the meantime, where l
12 l
they turned off their lights.
I 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Fine. But why is the first 14 part there?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think you are both saying 16 the same thing.
17 I think you are both saying that the obvious point 18 is that a power plant that is in use, is generating 19 electricity that is being used, and if you shut it down there 20 would be some disruptive consequences when people are using 21 it.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
(
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think what we want to 24 say is that we are not unmindful in proceeding down this 25 road, of the consequences of turning power plants off for one 1596 019
l 18 i
li ll l
1 or another safety reasons.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes. That kind of thought 3
I would have no problem with.
4 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's okay.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's okay with me, too.
6 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Try it.
I 7
MR. BICKWIT:
Okay.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, you have a mandate to 9
try to repair this area and we will negotiate further on 10 the particulars.
11 You have gotten some guidance on sentence one, let 12 me turn for a moment to the " excellent local plans" 13 COMMISSIOt:ER GILINSKY:
Is " excellent" better or 14 less good than " outstanding"?
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do you mean if " outstanding" 16 it exists or ---
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- is not yet received, or 18 19 what is it?
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
" Outstanding" is crossed 21 out here and " excellent" is put in its place.
22 COMMISSIONER KEF.NEDY:
I know.
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think, neither word is what 24 you are looking for.
You are looking for a word along the 25 lines of effective, or acceptable or adequate or sound or 1596 02P
19 I
something of that kind.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Don't we have some criteria 1
3 that we have been -talking about about what is acceptable?
4 And if we have, tha':'e the word that is appropriate, isn't it?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend that to your 6
attention in the redraf ting, and would propose not to 7
negotiate with it further.
8 MR. BICKWIT:
All right.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDPIE:
Now, Dick, did you have anything 10 l up to this connection on that?
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Since you are on that 12 page, can.I ask something?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, yes.
I 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say,
... is not 15 undue.."
I guess I would use, "... may not be undue."
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Where is that?
c 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's at the bottom of that 18 paragraph in this insert that the General Counsel has given 19 us.
20 Instead of "... is not...
may not be... "
21 MR. BICKWIT:
Fine.
". 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
(
23 You know, in a certain sense -- well let it go.
24 The lack of any adequant plan might reasonably 25 be judged at an appropriate time to constitute an undue risk 1596 02l I
4 l
20 l
11 l
1 in every case.
Whether the absence of a concurred-in i
2 plan is precisely equivalent to inadequate plans-is not at 3
all clear.
And I think, since we deal in this rule with 4
the formality of a concurred-in plan, why it is worth the 1
5 note, but may not.
That's fine with me.
Okay.
6 I was about to see if you had earlier comments, 7
Dick, and then we are all up through the middle of page 15 8
or something like that.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Counsel's going to take 10 l his hand at some reworking?
11 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Counsel will have to try to 12 repair this and come around and we will sge whether we meet 13 and discuss.
.I want to talk to you about the schedule in 14 a minute anyway, and we can see what the availabilities are.
15 Onward.
Let's see, I guess I don't believe I 16 have anything else to complain about in the amended version.
17 Anybody, before we get to the end?
Peter has one 18 at the end.
19 Peter, go ahead.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just need some eXP anation of how to read the handwritten change on page 34.
l 21 22 Is it now Option A or Option ---
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have to go over into that 24 squiggle on the left there, Peter, and -- Haven't you been 25 Supplied a code key?
1596 022
21 i
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It broke down to this 1
(
2 one.
I can't figure out the relationship between 180 days 3
and January 1, 1981.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's a good point.
Neither 5
can I.
I'm afraid it is probably someone trying to be 6
responsive to me, but in the end, I ---
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are the problem.
8 Anybody understand it?
Mark?
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At one point, we agreed ---
10 MR. CHOPKO:
What page are you on?
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is the last page where 1.2 it said in the earlier version -- The Friday night version 13 it said -- it is within the middle of Section V.
It said:
14 "Within Option A 60 days or, Option B 180 days."
15 The new version says:
"Within 60 days or 180 16 days after January 1, 1981."
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is either 60 days or 18 180 days after January, 1981.
19 MR. CHOPKO: The reason, it used to say:
the effective date of the amendment." It was changed to 20 21
" January 1, 1981," because Appendix E does not become a requirement for licensees under the proposed regulations, 22 23 until January 1, 1981.
The practical import of not changing that language would mean that you would, in effect, be trying 24 to stick something on a licensee, under Appendix E, that the 25 1596 023
l 22 1
regulations would not require him to do until some later time.
(
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But Mark, you are -saying 3
that Appendix E doesn't become effective until ---
l 4
l MR. CHOPKO:
January 1, 1981.
It is 50.54 (b) in 5
the markup.
6 MR. BICKWIT: It becomes effective when everything 7
else becomes effective too, 8
MR. CHOPKO:
Yes, when all of the other regulations--
9 MR. BICKWIT:
So why don't we just go back to 10 effective date of this amendment.
11 MR. CHOPKO:
If you adopt the 60 days of your 12 final rule, it has no U: gal effect until whenever the 13 effective date is.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I see.
The amendment may 15 be in effect ---
16 MR. CHOPKO: At a time after the -- say 90 days 17 after.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are trying to separate ---
18 19 MR. CHOPKO:
I'm trying to make sure that you 20 are not asking someone to do something in Appendix E that 21 the regulations and other requirements of the law would not 22 have them do until a later date.
(
23 MR. BICKWIT:
I see.
24 MR. CHOPKO:
Unless you are willing to drop those 25 alternatives and just pick a date here, say within 90 days 1596 024
23 I
i I
1 after after the effective date, or within 30 days after
[
2 January 1, 1981, to allow a reasonable time to comply with it.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, the 60 days and 4
180 days are?
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: For implementing procedures 6
for the emergency plan.
7 MR. CHOPKO:
The" both relate back to the top of 8
page 23.
The little (v) at the top.
9 (Pause while the Commission reads the text. )
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The words:
this amend-11 ment..."
Mark, refer to.---
12 MR. BICKWIT: The rule, the whole rule.
I f
MR. CHOPKO: The package.
13 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The whole rule, which ---
i MR. CHOPKO: Encompasses everything.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, the 'mergency plans 16 17 have to be in effect no later than January 1, 1981?
18 l
MR. CHOPKO: That's true.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could be earlier?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
Could be earlier.
20 MR. CHOPKO:
That's correct.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, effective date of 22 the amendment is, yon say, January 1, 1981?
23 MR. BICKW', J' :
No, it may become effective ---
24 COMISSION z R AHEME : Earlier?
25 1596 025
i 24 1
MR. BICKWIT:
Earlier, like a couple of months.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But then, say again the 3
problem with leaving in the language after the effective 4
date of this amendment?
5 MR. CHOPKO: Suppose the -- The practical problem 6
with it is suppose the final rules are published in 7
September, then you are asking the licensee to take some 8
actions in 60 days after the final rules are published or 9
become effective in September, then you are asking the 10 licensee, in Appendix E to do something in November that 11 may be, under the version of the regulation that you adopt, 12 you would not have to do until January.
So what you are 13 trying to do is force him to do something ahead of time.
14 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But isn' t the time to cure 15 that when we adopt the final regulations, that is, to make 16 sure then that we choose consistent dates in each of these 17 paragraphs.
18 MR. CHOPKO:
Yes, unless the other alternative 19 is to not publish alternatives and just say within 60 days 20 of the effective date of this amendment, whatever that is, 21 whether it is in January or ---
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no. Wait minute.
(,
23 You said within 60 days of the effective -- Oh, 24 within 60 days of the effective date, then you don't have the problem.
That's right.
25 1596 026
I l,
I 25 I
1 i
MR. CHOPKO: Whatever that date is.
At least I I
r I
i 2
j think that's the way the initial one ---
l 3
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would go back to that, 4
I think, and ther. if that turns out in the final version 5
to cause difficulty, we can just make sure that the dates 6
are harmonious throughout.
7 MR. CHOPKO:
Alternative B came trom you, 8
Commissioner Ahearne.
I don't know what your feelings are 9
on that.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like to go with 11 the: "withia 60 days."
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have a -- Karl seems 13 to want to say something on this point.
l 14 l
MR. GOLLER:
Before you leave that paragraph, PeoP e have been using the word " alternative" now.
I would l
15 16 like agreement from the Commission that that should be 17
" alternative" rather than " option", to make it consistent 18 with the terminology throughout.
19 Also, at the beginning of that paragraph, Roman 20 Numeral V, the first word should say: "No less than 180 21 days..."
rather than "within".
The intent was to have 22 it at least 180 days prior to that.
f 23 Additionally, I have noticed certain other areas in this document as it is now prepared, where the 24 language is not as precise as it should be.
For example, ---
25 1596 027
l 26 l
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm glad you noticed that.
(
2 MR. GOLLER:
sh would require a plant to do 3
something.
I would hope that we would have that prerogative 4
from the Commission to straighten out these words. If it 5
is worded correctly then a licensee is asked to do something 6
with the plant, because there may be some other areas of 7
this nature.
8 Lastly, I would like to make a personal plea, if 9
you will, that the Commission has actually considered each 10 and every one of these alternatives as they are now set 11 forth, and that you wish each of these to be identified 12 as such.
13 For example, there are several steps of alternatives g
14 where the only distinction is either within 180 days for the. effective time of this rule, or the alternative being 15 180 days or January 1, whichever comes sooner.
My 16 17 question is ---
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think the two alternatives 18 are January 1, is one alternative, and the other alternative 19 is within 180 days or January 1, whichever.
20 MR. GOLLER:
Right.
That has been corrected.
21 D es the Commission actually want to indicate 22
(
23 those two alternatives in this proposed rule if it is going ut for commer:t at this time.
I think it is obvious that 24 these alternatives very much complicate this presentation to 25 1596 028 I
27 f
l the public, and if somehow the Commission would reduce some 1
(
2 of these alternatives, I think it would improve this 3
presentation to the public.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is the sense of the 5
Commission on 180 days from effective, versus January 1, 19817 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, it is my alternative 7
is the one that I think that Karl finds a problem with, and 8
that is 180 days or January 1, whichever is sooner.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, that's the one -- Okay, 10 that versus January 1.
11 MR. GOLLER:
No, sir.
I have no problem with 12 either one.
I would like to make the suggestion that' the I
13 Commission would agree on one or the other, recognizing that 14 this is a proposed rule and it may well be changed to 15 something entirely different later on, but why single out 16 this one detail of a very complicated proposed rule when 17 you could indicate alternatives on a great many other 18 points.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER KINNEDY:
I wish you hadn' t suggested 21 tha t.
22 COMMISS2ONER AHEARNE:
In the latter.
[
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is fair to count you --
24 I'll call it the 180 day option, understanding it means 25 180 days from effective or January 1, whichever comes sooner.
1596 029
l 28 a
li 1
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
t 2
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, I count you that way.
3 I'll count myself to make it clear for January 1.
4 Dick?
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
January 1, that's what we 5
6 had in the first place.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm with John.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don' t we just make it 8
l 180 days, period, not whichever comes sooner.
That's the 9
10 kind of ---
11 No, no.
12 (Simultaneous discussion.)
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
2, 2, 1.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, no.
I'm suggesting 15 that they modify their proposal.
This is the kind of change 16 one could easily make at the end, I think, whichever comes 17 sooner or whatever.
I'm proposing to make it 180 days, 18 Period, which was John's original proposal, and just modify 19 that as necessary at the final rule stage.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The difficulty, clearly with 21 that is that by the progress of the pro aeding could well 22 be that 180 days may extent well ---
{
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So at the final rule you 24 may change it to January 1, or ---
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Our problem then, suddenly 1596 030 i
i 29 l
! changing the rule to make it leap ahead in time, without 1
2 having originally pointed that out.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: All right, I will go 4
along with that proposal whichever comes sooner.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I must say, although I'm on 6
the losing side of that count, that I think the benefits 7
from simplication of what we publish here are substantial.
8 What do you think, Dick?
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, I agree.
But then I 10 agreed with that last week.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us, in addition to your 12 l
fixing the section on both alternativps, et cetera, page 13,
~
13 let us settle down on 180 days from the effective date, or 14 January 1, 1981 whichever comes sooner and eliminate 15 alternatives wherever that is the sole difference between 16 them, Okay?
17 How many does that take out, Karl?
18 MR. GOLLER:
This is the consideration of plants 19 due to receive an operating license, and what exactly are 20 the differences of the alternatives as presented between 21 those.
I personally don't see a great deal of difference 22 between the two alternatives as now presented in this paper.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If those who are in 24 support of the first version are willing to allow the writing 25 of the second version to stand, I would have no problem.
1596 031
li 30 I
i 1
i But I think there is a difference.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Before we move on from 3
Karl's last bit about -- He actually made three points, 4
one of which we have now decided, the other, of which I'm 5
having no difficulty with, that business of no less than l
180 days.
6 7
On the third one, the business of Option A versus 8
Alternative A, obviously the schematics doesn't matter, but 9
I guess I wasn't clear whether we still had, on that last 10 page, an Option A or an Option B, or whether we just agree 11 on 60 days.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We scratched it, I thought.
I 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That's right.
So it is 14 simply now, 60 days.
Okay.
So the point about alternative 15 just doesn't matter.
16 MR. GOLLER:
Let me just clarify that then, 17 because I really didn't get -- I assume that we would change --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it depends on what 19 the changes are, clearly, because we have gone through 20 agonizing hours, as your guys know very well ---
21 MR. GOLLER:
For example, page 2.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sure you can find
(
23 a few examples, and where clearly you have to write it in 24 the clear language.
The plant doesn't do things, the licensee does things, clearly.
But as many of us have seen 25 1596 032
31 1
in a number of these negotiations in the sessions, what
(
2 is one person's clarifications to someone else, ends up 3
being a significant change.
4 MR. GOLLER:
Well, perhaps we then identify these, 5
and go through them.
6 On page 2 ---
7 MR. BICKWIT:
Wouldn't it be possible where we 8
see something that obviously would not be a significant 9
change for any Commissioners, then we will make it correct.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me you have 11 12 to allow the General Counsel a certain freedom.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes.
e 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is your point, Karl?
15 Let's take an example and be sure that we know 16 what we are talking about, because believe me, I think this 17 Paper has had more attention devoted to it than it can 18 Possibly stand.
It is now being weighed down by the weight 19 of the ink being written all over it in repetitive revisions.
20 It seems to me that if we can clear this up once and for all 21 and get it out of here, that would at least give the public 22 some opportunity to comment.
At the rate we are going now, 23 the public may be in a new generation before they get this, 24 you know, they may have an entirely different view of things.
S maybe you can give us an example.
You were on 25 1596 033
32 1
page 2, Karl.
t' 2
ll MR. GOLLER:
Page two ---
3 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let's be sure we know what 4
we are talking about, for once.
5 MR. GOLLER: Page 2, the sentence just above number 6
3 at the bottom of the page.
"In casas of serious deficiencies, 7
the order to show cause vill be made immediately effective and the plant would be required to shut down."
8 9
I would propose we change that to, "the licensee 10 would be required to shut down the plant. "
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Splendid.
12 MR. GOLLER:
Similarly, on the next page there is 13 another change in the second paragraph says essentially 14 the same thing.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: By all means.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend that unless you 17 have convincing evidence that the plants have been 18 sufficiently automated, this language says you fix them, and 19 it seems to me that no one will stay the effort.
Work with 20 the General Counsel.
Somewhere between you you have to 21 Produce a version of this which is readable, and hopefully 22 without handwritten edits on it.
At least, if I were the
(
23 editor of the Federal Register, you would have to produce ---
24 MR. HANRAHAN:
I don't think the public is going to misconstrue that somebody, like the licensee, is going to 25 1596 034 4
33 1
I shut down the plant.
(
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Karl, you had another 3
point, however.
4 MR. GOLLER:
The other one was whether we could 5
possibly reduce the two alternatives on Item 1, relative 6
to ---
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Page where?
8 MR. GOLLER:
Very top of page 2, and toward the 9
middle of page 3.
The two alternatives relative to the 10 initial licensing of -- for operation of the plant, whether 11 there is really a distinction indicated there.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll bet you a cookie that 13 people will find a distinction there.
14 MR. GOLLER:
That's part of the problem.
15 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
I've got a notion that that 16 one may be the subject of extended discussion.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
One thought would be that 18 those who distinguish might wish to indicate what it was 19 they were distinguishing.
That would help you?
20 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, it certainly would.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Perhaps we could go to that 22 notion.
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think there is a 25 distinction.
1596 035
I il I
34 hl i
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's your point, that the
(
2 criteria are the same.
The differences are procedural.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
In this instance the procedures 4
would be the same.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And in this instance the
.lProcedureswouldbethesame.
6 I
7 John, you are the distinction ---
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would agree there is 9
no distinction, if those who are in favor of the first 10 alternative had no difficulty with taking the language that 11 is written on page 3 and using that for number one, in which case I could be confident that there is no distinction.
12 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the dit cinction that 13 14 you see now?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, since that first 15 alternative has been --
I haven't really been concentrating 16 that much on the first alternative.
I have been trying to 17 hold -- I have turned to my proposed, and so I'm sure that 18 that tracks, still tracks with what I had in mind, and if 19 people say there is no distinction, and they were the 20 Proponents originally of a different version, then I would 21 be delighted if they say there is no distinction and they 22 can accept that language, then we can use it for both.
f 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That seems reasonable to 24 25 1596 036
35 1
MR. BICKWIT:
If you want an opinion from this i
2 end, that seems reasonable.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which paragraphs are you 4
suggesting?
5 MR. BICKWIT:
The two paragraphs one.
You are 6
suggesting ---
7 MR. GOLLER:
Page 2 and 3.
I 8
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The two paragraphs one?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
The two paragraphs numbered one.
11 MR. GOLLER:
I think they are certainly extremely 12 close, in my opinion of the one on page 3, it comes closer l
13 h to setting forward what I think was originally intended and i
14 l
I think it is still intended.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
15 l
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is the effect of calling 17 for an exe:aption?
fl; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it makes it more 18 19 formidable to get a relaxation from standards.
l 20 t
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Then there is a difference.
21 Is that right?
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, I would have said i
23 that what, in fact would happen under one would be an 24 exemption, but ---
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that's not what Victor 1596 037
36 1
is saying.
2 COMMISSIONER GT.LIEh_;Y: w 11, I didn' t like this, 3
but you are asking me ~ ow I look at the two, and by putting 4
in the word 'cx9mption then it makes the requirement sound 5
more formidable.
6 MR. GOLLER:
Well, I think since the Commission 7
is simply. granting an operating license at that point, would 8
in itself inherently would inv 31ve in an exemption, would 9
declare it in a sense a rule.
Now whether a separate 10 piece of paper is necessary that is latied exemption, I 11 refer to the General Counsel, but I would think ---
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would read it to be required.
13 Furthermore, he doesn' t get a chance to have a 14 hearing on it.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does he or doesn't he?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No.
17 MR. BICKWIT:
You are in an OL situation.
The 18 licensee has got the burden of proof to get his license and 19 he either has to come in and say I've got a concurred-in 20 plan or he has to demonstrate why he needn't have one.
21 And whether you call that an exemption or not, it amounts 22 to the same thing.
The issue is contested and we will have 23 a hearing on it.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In a formal, legal, 25 Procedural sense, does the introduction of the notion of the 1596 038 i
l 37 t
1 quote, exemption, unquote add something procedurally or 2
does it not?
3 MR. BICKWIT:
I do not believe it does in this 4
instance.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think we need to know 6
l that categorically, whether it does or not.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, you are going to have to 8
l grant an exemption, right?
9 It is going to have to be an order of the Commission 10 that says he is exempt from this particular regulation.
11 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't read it that way.
I read it 12 that the licensee is making certain points, and if he needs 13 to establish first, certain propositions for his case to 14 be accepted, that he ought to have an operating license.
15 And one of those points may be ---
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
These are operating plants we 17 are talking about?
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, no.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, no. These are ones 20 coming up for OL issuance.
21 MR. HANRAHAN:
But the second alternative does 22 say, no operating license will be issued unless NRC finds, 23 in other words, implied -
..As an interested reader of this, 24 since there are two alternatives, I would want to see what 25 the distinction was between them, and I see words like " finds 1596 039 l
i 38 1
and exemption," that would imply to me that that has to be
[
2 the distinction and would require some finding by.the 3
Commission.
4 So it would seem -- the two
-- alternative to 5
me, just as a casual reader, has a little tougher standards 6
l applied to it and requires a positive action.
That would 7
be the reading, now, legally, I'm sure the General Counsel 8
is correct.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would be the intent 10 of the. drafter.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And do.those positive 12 actions then imply the need for additional procedural 13 steps on the part of the Commission and public?
Does it 14 give rights to parties to the proceedings?
15 MR. BICKWIT:
I do not read it that way.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don' t think so, but I 17 think it is in the operating license ---
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But the Commission does have 19 to issue an order exempting a given plant from these 20 regulations.
MR. BICKWIT: If you want to read it, you can read 21
'2 it either way.
I don't read it that way, but if you want 2
to read it that way, then there is a difference between
(
23 the two.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, the author said that's 25 1596 040
39 l
1 what he intended.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It was intended to make 3
the Ccmmission make a positive conclusion.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Oh, a positive conclusion.
If the 5
question is, do they have to issue an order, I don't read.
6 it as saying that.
I 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Issuing an order is more 8
specific, but I did intend the Commission to have to make 9
a positive conclusion.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How would you express the 11 conclusion?
A piece of paper that said, "We the Commission 12 find as follows."
That's what I mean by an order. ~
13 COMMISSIONER AE2ARNE:
But the plant may have an 14 Operating license, and this operating ---
l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And that the operating plants 16 may continue to operate.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, no, this is ---
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the Commission itself 19 must do this ---
20 (Simultaneous voices) 21 CHAIRMA HENDRIE: Wait, wait.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -- the Commission itself is 23 not involved in the OL proceeding itself.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
No, I don't read this to say the 25 Commission itself must do it.
1596 041
I 40 f
1 MR. GRIMES:
If I may, I think we would be 2
better off looking at the regulation itself instead of the 3
words that describe the regulation, and those are found on 4
pages 18 and.19.
5 The section we are talking is Section 30.47 which 6
applies to new operating licenses.
In the middle of the 7
page, on page 18, it just indicates that the applicant would 8
have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 9
Commission, which might imply a safety evaluation report type 10
, of thing, in my mind, rather than a formal exemption.
11 Alternative B on the next page, specifically says 12 you need an exemption.
In addition, there is another, the 13 last sentence in Alternative B does not appear in Alternative 14 A, which says -- hinges on the NRC finding on appropriate 15 Protective actions, including evacuation when necessary.
16 So those are the principal differences.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Two very important 18 differences.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The language of the draft 20 regulation does, indeed, deal with, "... no operating 21 licenses wil be issued after the effective date of the 22 rule," et cetera, et cetera.
(
23 But back on pages 2 and 3 where we are explaining 24 the differences between these alternatives, it talks about perating plants.
It says, on the one hand, if you have got 25 1596 042 i
41 i
i 1
l a plant operating and the thing uecomes effective, and I.
2 you haven't got a concurred-in plan, you can consider the 3
circumstances, and if you do decide to shut him down, why 4
you issue a show cause order and he gets a chance to 5
complain about it, whereas the other option is you shut him 6
down unless you issue an exemption.
7 MR. BICKWIT:
I understand.
8 There are big differences where you are talking 9
about paragraphs 2 and 3 of the two alternatives.
Karl is 10 mentioning only paragraphs 1 of the two alternatives.
The 11 advice I.have given with respect to paragraphs 1 of the two 12 alternatives is there-isn't any difference.
s l
13 COMMISSIONER. KENNEDY:
The options when one goes 14 to the regulation, ' hough, rightly points out are very 15 different indeed.
16 MR. MALSCH:
The only difference there really is 17 the addition of the second sentence in Alternative B 18 which says that no such operating license will be issued 19 unless the NRC finds that appropriate protective actions, I
20 including evacuation when necessary, can be taken for 21 any reasonably anticipated population within the plume 22 exposure.
That is different.from A, but ---
MR. BICKWIT: Not in this respect.
23 MR. HANRAHAN:
You find two differences, I think.
24 There are two alternatives and so one looks for 25 1596 043
l l
42 iii l
1 the differences and it is an exemption in finding the
(.
2 second one which don't exist in the first one.
There has 3
to --
It has to give the read of the opinion that that's 4
what is important, something is going to happen.
5 MR. MALSCH:
But the finding is the same in both.
6 The only difference is in one it is called "also an 7
exemption."
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The point really though, of 9
what you and Brian have said then, Marty, in that there does 10 need to perhaps be two paragraphs ones, but they are focused 11
' on the wrong' thing at the moment.
One of them should 12 reflect that second sentence in Alternative B ---
13 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- and one could condense 15 these two paragraphs into one but you would still have to 16 have something talking about options.
17 MR. MALSCH: That's right, in the second sentence, 18 but the.first sentences, I think, are operationally ---
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Try again, Karl.
20 MR. GOLLER:
What I think is more important now, 21 is the Commission as a whole or individually, are they 22 still considering both of these alternatives.
Do they
(
23 prefer one over_the other as a group.
If it is the latter, 24 of course, then the other is just another alternative / option, if you will, that anybody can come up with when it 35 moved 25 1596~044 i
43 1
about as a proposed rule.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we could collapse 3
the whole paper that way.
I mean, that's just one course, 4
just to have one alternative throughout.
5 MR. GOLLER:
Well, the question I'm asking is there 6
really -- are there really two alternatives here that the p
7 Commission itself is considering?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I think there are.
9 MR. GOLLER:
On Item 1.
There clearly are on 10 Items 2 and 3 where you are talking about operating plants, 11 nosquestioncthat:there is.a-difference.
But on Item 1 12 where you are talking about plants that haven' t been licensed 13 yet and apparently just the procedara. aspects of how you 14 might issue their license is a lot less clear to me than 1
15 there is any difference here.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, that last sentence on 17 Page 19 certainly is different.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think there are differences, 19 and the reason there are alternatives in the rule going out 20 are to, in effect, postpone the Commission's resolution to 21 see where the weight of the opinion finally lies.
In the 22 interest of getting the damn thing out for comment, to postpona 23 that until we get comment and then we will have to come back 24 to it.
But I think, in fact, there is a difference.
I Prefer Alternate A -- the Alternate A version.
25 1596 045
44 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Though John's point in 2
proposing that sentence to Alternate B before is'that it 3
codified what we had all, in effect, agreed to, to Mr.
4 Fithian (phonetic).
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, the four of us who 6
were there.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, you codified it in the 9
way in which John chose to write it.
I didn't also agree 10 to Mr. Fithian, that that was part of my agreement with the 11 principle.
I think the language under Alternative A is 12 the framework from a regulatory standpoint, for my use.
13 COMMISSIONER BRALFORD:
Let's, by all means, have both go out then, but maybe rewrite, at least the second 14 15 paragraph 1 to reflect the fact that this sentence is 16 different.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I would suggest 18 in the rewriting of paragraph 1,-the. adding of a sentence 19 rathen than rewriting the paragraph.
I think the paragraph 20 is a fairly accurate description.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Len, I want to ask you 22 something about the burden of proof in operating licenses.
(
23 You said the burden of proof is on the licensee.
24 I'm just scanning through our regulations here and as I do 25 when our discussions drag on.
It says: "Upon completion of 1596 046
45 0
4 i
1
! construction or alteration of the facility, in compliance
{
2 with the terms and conditions of the construction permit 3
and subject to any necessary testing of the facility for 4
health or for safety purposes, the Commission will, in the 5
absence of good cause shown to the contrary, issue a license 6
of the class..."
et cetera, et cetera.
7 What does that mean?
8 MR. MALSCH: That's just reading from the 9
statute.
There is another section that deals with the 10 burden of proof, in Part 2, I think.
11 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And makes clear that the i
12 burden of proof is on the licensee?
13 MR. MALSCH:
Yes, sir.
l 14 i
MR. BICKWIT:
Even if it doesn't, my understanding i
15 of the administrative law principles is that the proponent 16 of the rule or the order for action has the burden of 17 Proof.
But even if that is not the case with respect to 18 operating licenses, generally under paragraph one of 19 Alternative A, it is said that the licensee shall demonstrate 20 this.
So that would certainly make it clear in this case, 21 that the burden of proof is on the licensee.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I have a point on page 10 f
23 if it is permissible to return to that.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why not.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is on page 10, but I 1596 047
j 46 I
wanted to read something from page 11.
2 At the top of the page we say something-about 3
viewing emergency planning as equivalent to, rather than
[
4 as secondary to, siting them, and design and public i
5 protection and so on.
Also, on page 10 that says: "A
- h. conclusion the Commission draws from this is that in carrying 6
7 out its statutory mandate to protect the public health 8
and safety, the Commission must be in a position to know 9
that off-site governmental plans have been reviewed and 10 found adequate."
11 This text then goes on to say: "The Commission t
12 finds that the public can be best protected within the 13 framework of the Atomic Energy Act if additional 14 attention is given to emergency response planning."
15 That last sentence seems to me to have a little 16 of the flavor of guilding the lilly, and I would say: "The 17 Commission finds that the public can only be protected, 18 within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act if additional 19 attention is given to emergency response planning."
20 It seems to me that would be consistent with 21 viewing it as equivalent to our siting and design reviews.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's all right with me.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where are you going to 24 Put the "only"?
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Between "can and be" and i596 048
a 47 4
i l
1 strike "best".
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
... it Jan only be..."
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If we speak of:
... must 4
be in a position to know..." et cetera, and putting emergency 5
planning on the same basis as siting and design reviews 6
MS. ARON:
How about putting it after "if".
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, that's fine.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But still drop the word "best" ?
9 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's fine.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
,Other comments.
Have I hit 13 a moment of silence.
14 MR. GRIMES:
I have a question on that as to the 15 legal implications for the current licensee, since the 16 Public can only be protected if we give additional attention 17 and we have not yet given the additional attention, are they i
18 now unprotected.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure we have.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But I thought we went 21 over this.
This is the prob.'.em we face every time we 22 impose a new requirement, and these, in many cases, simply 23 cannot be imposed immediately and one understands that.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And your teams are already ut.
Already givhy that additional attention.
25 1596 049 i
48 1
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not much action has been 2
t taken.
3 What does the Commission _ propose to do with 4
tomorrow's petition which says, on the basis of this 5
document shut them all down.
Are you supposed to grant it?
6 MR. BICKWIT:
We have dealt with that question and i
7 our view was -- We had proposed the language that would shield 8
, us from that, however, the Commission instructed us to take 9
such language out and we advised that we did not believe 10 that we would loose litigations because that language came 11 out.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me, we are 13 in effect, finding that -- we are finding that additional 14 attention to emergency planning is necessary and required, 15 and the public can only be protected if that is obtained, but 16 that it is tolerable to have this ---
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Good. If you will say that ---
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
Absolutely.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- right here.
Okay.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
But we are saying 21 it, in effect, and if you want to say it explicitly, that's 22 fine.
(
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You know, what I can't stand 24 is to have the "only" in, but the rest of it is all just 25 implicit and not understood, okay.
If you want to put the 1596 050 i
49
! whole thing in, I'm with you all the way.
1
(
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Fine.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why don't you just write 4
the sentence down, Mark.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Otherwise, as Brian points 6
out, you are going to have to deal with the petitions 7
tomorrow, and you say, well, we will go over those, but ---
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it is the same 9
Problem you had with the emergency core cooling system 10 or anything else, and we are agreeing that it takes a 11 certain amount of time to do this, and we are agreeing that 12 that's an acceptable arrangement.
~
T 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's acceptable.
14 I think we ought to say that, and I think, in fact, 15 I expect as Len says, he can win the court cases, if the 16 Petitions are denied, why I think it is useful for the 17 Commission to make that statement explicitly.
You are right, 18 it is there every. time you do a regulation change, we face it 19 every time.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would put the finds in 20 21 the past tense, too.
By the time we actually make this 22 rule final, a lot of the actions that are going to be
(
23 taken to the satisfaction of that sentence, will be in the 24 past.
And if next April we make the finding that additional attention is necessary we will, in effect, be saying additiona L 25 1596 051
l 50 I
i 1
to what will have been done in the preceding year.
(
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Somewhere I lost enough of 3
the track, Peter, could you come back to me with the change?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, I would change 5
" finds" to "has found".
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Vick, do you have a sentence 6
l.
7 you could add on the tolerable?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, I prefer the word 9
" tolerable".
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I know, but do you 11 have a sentence you could ---
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What goes around it?
13 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just stamp it at the top
- of the page.
14 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'll give you a sentence 16 after the meeting.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: " Tolerable" or " acceptable" is 18 another standard ---
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we understand it would 20 take a certain amount of time to do this.
That doesn't 21 mean an indefinite period, in fact, it means an indefinite 22 Period is not acceptable, and I just ---
(
23 MR. CHOPKO:
I think there was a sentence in an 24 earlier draft that said, " operation while we upgrade our P ans" --
"... protection of the public while we upgrade l
25 1596 052
51 1
our plans is still deemably acceptable."
(
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Over the times that are 3
described in this or foreseen in this rule.
4 MR. CHOP"O:
I think v.
had something like that 5
in our two drafts.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would go back to that 7
thought, but I think I would try to tighten it up a little.
l 8
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, go and strive 9
further, Counsel's office, Karl, both.
Are you getting your 10 thumb in this too, Ed?
11 MR. HANRAHAN:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would expect so.
13 (Whereupon, the Commission concluded this meeting 14 at 3 :15 p.m. and moved on to meeting schedule matters.)
15 16 1596 053 17 18 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25
e"*t4 M, ASTM A
.,+m.
H Se.
NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIbH
[10 CFR Part 50]
EMERGENCY PLANNING AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Proposed Rule
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comis.sion, after considering the public
/
record available concerning licensee [, State and local government emer-
/
gencypreparedness,andtheneedtoenhanceprotectionofthepublic\\
health and sa.fety, is propasing to amend its regulations to provide an interim upgrade of NRC emergency planning regulations.
In a few areas of the proposed amendments, the Comission has identified two alternatives which it is considering.
In each instance both alternatives are presentei g
frefowV.
in the following summary of the proposed changes and in the specificprelle
/- changes presented 1.e4er in this notice.
The final rule will'not necessarily incorporate all of the first alternatives or all of the second alternatives.
That is, in some instances the first alternative may be adopted and in others, the second
_fI't'-- ' alternativer may be adopted,y ude n.ffe.n4Ws %
Tr as a result k 0 c.coldc.ra: tab s#
l o public coments<
,aN In.one alternative, the proposed change would not automatically require
[ suspension of operations for aaeE of concurrence in *g*fM luk
-* State and local governmant emergency response plan.
It would:
ed doZi. s ed. $ N (b.En.3 Wexh
% c.a,w QLr ha ha n.t yak Je. % e.A ac h O c w A la co h t. o pt m..
1596 054
J
- 1. l Require NRC concurrence in the appropriate State emergency response pl.ans prior to operating license issuance, unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the nuclear power plant in questiun that alternative compensating actions have been or wi11 be M
Sor
/
taken or t
ere ara other compelling reasons.tn license issuance.
j 2.
. If appropriate State and local emergency Tesponse plans have not received NRC concurrence by. January 1, 1981,3. Mf}. "
%b the Comission edit determine whether a
to require the licensee to shut down the nuclear power reactor.
If at time the Comission finds that the licensee has demonstrated that the deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that al'ternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly,,
or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation, then li the p;censee.aet may continue operation ( #
t/
If at this time the Comission cannot make such a finding, then the pu %.m0A ut:
Comission will order tne licensee to show cause why the 'hxx t:
h2a sku3-deuqn.
sedo A V-wa.
. J. J.J..
- = pr & d.
In cases of W defici'encies,
~
the order to show cause will be made immediately effectivo and the plant would be required to shut down.
3.
If appropiiate State and local emergency response plans do not warrant continued NRC concurrence and the State or locality do not correct the deficiencies within 4 months of notification RC withdrawa re.
the Comission determine wh her to require the licensee to shut down
/
the nuclear power reactor.
Shut down M not be required if the T596 055
[7590-01]
Comission finds that the licensee has demonstrated that the deficiencies
/ in the plan are not significant for the plant in question,of that alterna-
/
tive compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly?
or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.
If at this time the Comission cannot make such a finding, then the Commission will order the licenset to show cause why the 'yld
.r :
t:
not be :r;: W:d. In cases of :cryicas deficiences, skab ser: w
/
esema4e should the order *>., show cause will be made immediately effective and the 6
plant would be required to shut down.
In the other alternative the proposed rule change would automatically nu.d h.,e p q t #
..gcsta,t:e, we requirelshutdown for lack of concurrence in ke2eemt. ;t:t' nAlocal govern-f
/\\
on-eb. L-ra naar. mea A tm., e._g * *h, is *ru3d ment emergency response plany J,t wouta:
'04.'
[
1.
Require NRC concurrence in the appropriate State and local government #
emergency response plans prior to operating license issuance.
- However, the Comission can grant an exemption from this :sp "'tauM-ar dwtir, if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comission t. hat deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question)et"that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly,or that there are other compelling reasons for license issuance.
imm:1 %
2.
- h am u require a licensee to shut down a nuclear power reactor /if m:-
I appropriate State or local emergency response plans have not received NRC concurrence within 180 days of the effective date of the final' amendments.
3 Enclosure "A" 1596 056
I or by January 1, lg81, whichever is sooner.
However, the Commission may grant an exemption from this requirement if the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Coranission that the deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly,or that there are other com-g.w g pelling reasons for continued operation. If there is no8).currence, and the
/7
, plant is shut down, then it must remain shuijjown until such an exemption
/ is grantef *'
^
^
3.
Jt 'rM require a licensee to shut down a nuclear power reactor if appropriate State or local emergency response plans do not warrant con-tinued HRC concurrence and the State or locality does not correct the aficiencies within 4 months of notificatio NRC withdra a However, the Commission can grant'an exemption to this requirement if the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that the
./
deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the p'lant in question that y
alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly,or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation. % b h "8 a~9. % p N e kua cle em A W susi: re. m L.,. A i d - J o w %
cote. m e e 3
/
JL s.uls a x 4 (4 y A is g r a ~ e p o, % 4,,'t e m,. _,,,
g,,,8,,_,f)
In both alternatives the proposed rule would:
4.
Require that-itdie emergency planning considerations be extended to "Emer-gency planning Zones."
5.
Require that applicants' and licensees'~ detailed emergency planning implement-ing procedures be submitted for NRC review.
4 Enclosure "A" 1596 057
6.
Clarify and expand 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, " Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities."
DATES:
Coments should be submitted on or before (60 days after publication).
T ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed rule changes and/or the supporting value/ impact analysis to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, f
Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of the
.i value/ impact analysis and of comments received by the Commission may be examined-in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
and at local Public Document Rooms.
Single copies of the value/ impact analysis, related regulatory guides, arid the NRC staff analysis of the public comments
~
<-od Adm.cc. } Job'c.e of "Pr9 sed Kh -
received,may be obtained on request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,'D.C.
20555 (Telephone: ~301-443-5966).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In June 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission began a formal reconsideration of the role of emergency planning in assuring the continued protection of the public health and safety in areas around nuclear power facilities.
The Commission had begun this reconsideration in recognition of the need for more effective emergency planning and in response to reports
~
issued by responsible offices of government and its Congressional oversight committees.
1596 058 5
Enclosure "A"
e
/
By memorandum. dated July 9, the Comission requested that the NRC staff undertake expedited rulemaking on the subject of State, local, and licensee emergency response plans.
The proposed rulemaking described in this notice responds to that request, and has been prepared on an expedited basis.
Consequently, considerations related to the workability of the proposed rule may have been overlooked and significant impacts to NRC, applicants, licensees, and State and local governments may not have been identified.
Therefore, the NRC particularly seeks coments iddressed to these points and intends to hold workshops prior to preparing a final rule to (a) present the proposed rule changes to State and local governments, utilities, and other interested parties
/ and-(b) $2> obtain coments concerning the costs, impacts, and practicality of the proposed rule.
~
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering the adoption of amendments to its regulation, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,"
30 CFR Part 50, that would require that emergency response planning considerations be extended to Emergency Planning Zones (discussed in NUREG-0595, EPA 520/1.-78-016
" Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants").
Both the Comission and EPA have formally endorsed the concepts in that EPA /NRC
/
Report, 44' Fedeset Reoj+%c 6T123 (October 28,1979).
In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering revising 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E,
" Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities," in order to clarify, expand, and upgrade the Comission's emergency planning 1596 059 6
Enclosure "A"
~
e regulations.I ' Prior to the conclusion of this rulemaking proceeding, the Commission will give special attention to emergency planning matters, including the need for concurred-in plans, on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the modified adjudicatory procedures of 10 CFR part 2, Appendix B.
Under that Appendix, no new license, construction permit, or limited work authorization sudwithout same. Commission consideration of issues such as this.2 may
~
Both versions of the proposed amendments call for u a c;,rditier, er g;...:..,
"c:n:e in...y State and local government emergency response plans to be submitted to and concurred in-by the NRC 4 dnd,Yhn. #praMy /Aenre /gs.
Under one alternative being considered, the proposed rule would require a determination on continued operation of plants where relevant State and local emergency response plans have not received NRC concurrence. Shutdown of a
~
reactor would not follow automatically in every case.
Under the other alternative proposal, shutdown of the reactor would be required automatically J%$
S ITwoNRC/guidancedocumentsarerelatedtothisproposedrul'echange.
" Draft Emergency Action Level Guidelines for Nuclear power Plants," NUREG-0610 was published for interim use and comment on September 19, 1979.
It is expected that a final version of the action level guidelines, based on the~public comments received, will be issued in early 1980.
In addition, in early 1980 upgraded and revised acceptance criteria for evaluating emergency prepardness plans will be issued for comment and may be included in_the Commission's regu-
[
e.J Ct.t; ;r.d '. m i ge.erirt N
- 3. '
2 44 Fed. Reo. 65049 (November 9, 1979) 1596 060 7
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
where the._ f 3 M State and local emerg_ency response plans have not received wNA4 W c. p u eu % R -n>m. @
NRC concurrenc However, the Commission could grant an exemption to this requirement if the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comission that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant f
in question ate that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken y
eT f e g or that there are other compelling reasons.
p PP _
If there is g urrence A
^
and the plant is shut down, then the plant must remain shutJewn until such an exemption is grantef *' 'id~'I C**c **u *-
-A-i5 The NRC presently requires that power reactor licensees and applicants plan for radiological emergencies within their plant sites and make arrangements with State and local organizations to respond to accidents that might have consequences beyond the site boundary.
In this way, offsite emergency response '
planning has been related to the nuclear licensing process.
To aid State and local governments in the development and implementation of adequate emergency response plans, the NRC, in conjunction with several other Federal agencies, has attempted, on a cooperative and voluntary basis, to provide for training and instruction of State and local government personnel and
/ to establish criteria to guide the preparation of emergency response plans?
However, in the past, the NRC has not made NRC concurrence in State and local e
emergency response plans a condition of operation 7 a nuclear power plant
/
the proposed rule would do so, as explained above.
3NRC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and local emergency response plans leading to NRC concurrence is contained in-NUREG 75/111,
" Guide and Checklist for Development and Evaluation of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (December 1, 1974) and Supplement 1 thereto dated March 15, 1977.
The adequacy of this quidance is being fevaluated by the staff and the Commission will con-sider coq,ification of the hpgraded criteria in 1980.
g 1596 061 8
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
In issuing this rule. NRC recognizes the significant responsibilities assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by Executive Order 12748 on July 15, 1979, to coordinate the emergency planning functions of executive agencies.
In view of FEMA's new role, NRC agreed on September 11, 1979, that FEMA should henceforth. chair the Federal Interagency Central Coor-dinating Comittee for Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness l-(FICCC).
0/Qx 5 Inaddition,NRCandFEMAhaveagreedtogjointresponsibilityfor concurring in State emergency response plans prior to NRC issuance of operating licenses.
During the next few months NRC and FEMA will continue to reexamine intra-federal relationships and responsibilities regarding radiological emergency response planning. However, the Comission does not believe that the reexamination should serve a.s a basis for delay in the proposed rule change.
At several places in the proposed amendments, the Comission refers to the roles of State and local governments.
Indeed the main thrust of the proposed rule is that prior concurrence in State and local emergency response plans will
~
be a condition for licensing and operation of a nuclear power plant.
The Comission recognizes that it cannot direct any governmental unit to prepare a plan, much less compel its adequacy.
However, the NRC can condition a license on the existence of adequate plans.
While the State and local governments have the primary responsibility under their constitutional police powers to protect their public, the Comission, under authority granted to it by the Congress, also has an important responsi-
~
bility to protect the public in matters of radiological health and safety.
Accordingly, with an understanding of its limitations and with a sensitivity to 9
Enclosure "A" 1596 062
v aru-o s.;
the importance of all levels of governments working together, the Comission will commit to seek and apply the necessary resources to make its part in this venture work.
Rationale for Chance The proposed rule is predicated on the Commission's considered judgment in the aftemath of the accident at Three Mile Island that safe siting and desigri-engineered features alone do not optimize protection of the public health and safety.
Before the accident it was thought that adequate siting in accord-ance with existing staff guidance coupled with the defense-in-depth approach to design would be the primary public protection.
Emergency planning was conceived
.gf as a secondary but additional measure to be exercised in the unlikely event that an accident would happen.
The Commission's perspective was severely altered by the unexpected sequence of events that occurred at Three Mile Island.
The accident showed clearly that the protection provided by, siting and engineered safety features must be bolstered by the ability to take protective measures during the course of an accident.
The accident also showed d1early that on-site conditions and actions, even if they do not cause significant off-site radio-logical consequences, will affect the way the various State and local entities
! react to protect the2k public frem dangers, real or imagined, associated with the accident. A conclusion the Comission draws from this is that in carrying out its statutory mandate to protect the public health and safety, the Commission must _be in a position to know that off-site governmental plans have been reviewed and found adequate.
The Commission finds that the public can be best protected within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act if additional attention is given to emergency response planning.
1596 063 10 Enclosure "A" e
The Comission recognizes that this proposal, to view emergency planning as equivalent to, rather than as secondary to, siting and design in public protec-tion, departs from its prior regulatory approach to emergency planning.
The Commission has studied the various propos&ls and believes that this course is the best available cho. ice.
In reaching this detemination the Comission is guided by the findings of its Emergency Planning Task Force which found the need for intensive effort by NRC over the next few years to upgrade the regulatory program in this area. The Comission has also endorsed the findings of the EPA-NRC Joint Task Force for policy development in this area.
Implementation of these. reports by the NRC in its staff guidance is necessary for the NRC to be as effective as possible in assisting those governmental units and those utilities responsible fo.r execution of the plans.
The Comission acknowledges the input of over one hundred comenters to date on the proposal to adopt new regulations.
The staff evaluation of these comments is incorporated by reference herein as part of the record in this rulemaking proceeding.
In addition, the Comission acknowledges the important contributions made this year by various official comenters on the state of emergency planning around nuclear facilities, whose views are included as part of the basis for
,these regulations.
The first of these was the report of the General Accounting Office issued coincident with the TMI accident which explicitly recomended that no new nuclear power plants be permitted to operate "unless offsite emergency plans have been concurred in by the NRC," as a way to insure better emergency protection.
GA0 Report, EMD " Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be 11 Enclosure "A" 1596 064
Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies" (March 30,1979).
In addition, the NRC Authorization Bill for FY 1980 (S.562) would amend the Atomic Energy Act to require a concurred-in State plan as a condition of operation.
The policy consideration that underlies this provision would be consistent with the Comission's views of the health and safety significance of emergency planning.
One of the Comission's House Oversight Subcomittees developed a comprehensive document on the status of emergency planning which recomended that NRC, in a leadership capacity, undertake efforts to upgrade its licensees' emergency plans and State and local plans. House Report No.96-413, " Emergency Planning Around U.S. Nuclear Power Plants," 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (August 8, 1979). The Report's recommendations were significant and its findings about the need for improved emergency preparedness lends support to the NRC's own efforts to assure that the public is protected.
Finally, the President's Comission on the Accident at Three Mile Island has recently recommended approved State and local plans as a condition for resuming licensing. This Comission's Report and its supporting Staff Reports on emergency responses and preparedness are indicative of many of the problems which the NRC would address in this rule.
In this regard the Comission notes that the already extensive record made on emergency planning improvements will be supplemented by the Report of its own Special Inquiry Group and other ongoing investigations, any requirements of'the NRC Authorization Act, and by the public coments solicited by 'this proposed rule.
The proposed rule meets many of the concerns discussed in the above
. mentioned reports and publications.
However, the Comission notes that the
~
proposed rule is considered as an interim upgrade of NRC emergency planning regulations and, in essence, clarifies and expands areas that have been perceived 12 Enclosure "A" 1596 005
to be deficient as a result of past experiences.
Because the Commission anti-cipates that further changes in the emergency planning regulations may be proposed as more experience is gained with implementing these revised regu-lations, as the various Three Mile Island investigations are concluded, and as the results become available from efforts in such areas as instrumentation and monitoring and generic studies of accident models, these proposed rules may require further modifications. Thus the proposed rule changes should be viewed as a first step in improving emergency planning.
Publication of these proposed rule changes in the Federal Reaister super-sedes and thus eliminates the need to continue development of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (43 FR 37473), published on August 23, 1978, regarding Emergency Planning considerations outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
The Comission is considering whether construction permits which have
/
already been issued 7should be reconsidered because of the emergency planning considerations of this rule.
For plants in operation, NRC teams are now meeting with licensees to upgrade licensee, State and local emergency plans and imple-menting procedures.
(a.Ltenative. A 3 It is important to note that under one alternativ, the proposed rules would not autgmatically r- '-
2 suspend bperations at nuclear power plants ayWa a e -
cit - "M the initial conversion period, &+-
"-' O or d.r' ; any grace period th;rc.,,nd&cahim 4 Jefeq.ts twp:rins. less of
&llowg ~ 11 phr,.x; :.
c6hcurrence.
This is not an area free A
from argument.
This alternative reflects the view that once a determination 13 Enclosure "A" 1596 066
u m via o&
Ocuse-
/has been made at thefalf stage that power is needed from a particular unit an that such a facility can be operated safely, it stands to reason that the facility cannot be simply shut down without some disruptive consequences to the people living there.
Unless there is a compelling safety reason that would prohibit operation, the NRC may properly weigh these consequences in deciding
/
whether to permit reactor operations. Tht: me*+ghile ths pr;;;n'g se,mumu i
/
importar.t for public health and safety,Othis alternative reflects the view M J =1 the increment of risk involved in permitting operation in the absence of concurred-in plans is not undue in every case.
Therefore, under this alternative, the plant need not be shut down in a scripue
/ given case imediately, unless the deficiencies are sufficiently ::r/ ced to warrant such action.
If the deficiencies are not significant for the particular
/ power plant dc.;., h
~""os
- 41. c4 ber
- 3ted f;r the :r' r 1--
o-~
/
A or the NRC is satisfied that there is adequate protection.4er the public health w&CA
/
and safety through alternative means (e.g., &Mhg local emergency plans in h a,u-A cr~ 4 m conjunction with an augmented licensee response, etc.), no order to the licerIsee U to show cause why the plant should not be shutdown need be issued.
In any event, the staff would review a licensee's demonstration in an infomal context before comencing show cause proceedings.under 10 CFR 2.202.
Atch*% A The NRC contemplates that under thi. ;:t:r= ti : initial concurrence and subsequent withdrawal, if necessary, would be noted in local newspapers.
In
/
w,Jd
. necessary cases, formal proceedings to suspend operation.wFri be initiated by an wed
/
order to show cause, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, which w?l pemit a hearing on that determination.
14 Enclosure "A" 1596 067
u..
..a (Autrrw.tioc 5 )
- /
1 As indicated, under the other alternative proposed rule /)the plant would Ib b
[ automatically /shutdownin-theevenuur-lackofconcurrenceorconcurrence A w #_AL c.M v 4 u C J 4 r
withdrawalfar#the licensee $ould me"1 iv
- convince the Commission that there are compelling reasons that warrant an exemption to allow M e,,om 15 ab' O
plant operatio[ Finally, under the other alternative proposal, the con NRgrecognizedthepublicinterestinthisprocess.
Public notice of any 3
initial concurrence or withdrawal of concurrence would be made in the Federal Register and in local newspaper.
Notice in the Federal Register and in local newspaper will also be provided of any required suspension of operations, any request for an exemption from this requirement, and any request that an operating license be exempt from the requirement for concurred-in plaf.
Public coments will be welcomed.
If significant interest in meeting with the staff is expressed, the staff may hold public meetings in the vicinity of the site to receive and discuss comments and to answer questions.
Accordingly, in the discharge of its duties to assure the adequate protec-tion of the public health and safety, the Comission has decided to issue proposed ruTes for public coment.
The proposed changes to -10 CFRg 50.33, 50.47, and 50.54 apply to nuclear power reactors only.
However, the proposed ppendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 applies to A
duction and lizationfacilitiesin general except as noted in the proposed Appendix E.
These proposals, comments, other official reports, and views expressed at the public workshops will be factored into the final rule, which the NRC now anticipates will be published in early 1900.
15 Enclosure "A" 1596 068
g
/
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of -}954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and'section 553 of title 5 of the United States Codo, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to 70 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
Copies of comments received on the proposed amendments may be examined in th'e Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.,
and it local Public Document Rooms.
1596 069 16 Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
s
- l'.
Pu ant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amend
, the Energy Reorganization of 1974, and section 553 of ti 5 of the United States Code, notice is herab iven that adopt of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appen
- 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
Copies of received on reposed amendments may be examined in the Come on's Public Document Room at 7 H Street, NW., Washington, D. C.
d at local Public Document Rooms.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTIO AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
Paragraph (g) of Section 50.33 is revised to read as follows:
550.33 Contents of applications; general information n
a a
n n
-(g)
If the application is for an operating license for a nuclear power reactor, the applicant shall submit radiological,eme p
g plans of "c.!M ' "'-'er State and local governmental entities l wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPI),
as well as the plans of Wu$4se.Statesgovernments wholly or partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ.2 Generally,thepkumeexposurepathway
(*ea. W>
EPZ for.LiehWahme-nuclear power 1 eues shall consist of an area about 4
10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the EPZs
' Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) are discussed in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants."
1596 070 2 (7 Enclosure "A'!
[7590-013 1
c&
surrounding a particular, nuclear power f...^ shall be determined in rela-tion to the emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such loca* conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, ahd 1ccal jurisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such less immediate actions as are appro-priate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
M +=r a h. ve m h of ' A. h +
l 2
A new section 50.47 is added,t; r;. i -- 4eMoses.
me m-r3
[ g )rTid 50.47 Emergency plans t._ A No operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless i}
s&MttA G A mlle
_-*- k - ee-eD-e the emergency response plans {'"' L'..it;d d;; Stath' and local governme
'M A
' M w-5 $a:t"ede
}T 7 entities {whollyorpartiallywithinthep1 a way (EPZ).,1 as well as the plans o
_r t;d ?-'- State e=Mosob governments JM wh r partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ have been reviewed' and concurred inz by the NRC.
In the absence of one or more concurred-in plans, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are act sign'Ificant for the plant in question er that alternative compensating
/
actions have been or will be taken promptly)or that there are other compelling reasons to permit operation.
est nerally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for 6 nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the
' Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) are discussed in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants."
2NRC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and local emergency response plans leading to NRC concurrence is contained in NUREG 75/111, " Guide und Checklist for Development and Evaluation of Stato and Local Government Radiological Eme'gency Response Plans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (December.1, 1974) and Supplement 1 thereto dated March 15, 1977.
1596 071
-d6 '.S Enclosum "A".
[7590-013
., s ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist ? an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the EPZs surrounding a particular t&
nuclear power paandr-shall be determined in relation to the emergency response need's and capabilities as they are affected by such local condi-
'tions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such.less immediate actions as are appropriate to protect the food ingestion psthway.
W'--
.:t'.; G.. garagrapn 1.o section 50.47 is alae m.cr *S f'-
b Yh No operating license for a nuclear power 94 eat will be issued unless the emergency response plans submitted by the applicant in accordance with 5 50.33(g) have been reviewed and concurred in by the NRC.
An appli-cant may request an exemption from this requirement based upon a demonstra--
a tion by the applicant that any deficiencies in the plans are not significant M
d er the plant in question g that alternative compensating actions have en or will be taken prompt 1 or that there are other compelling reasons to permit operation.
No such operating license will be issued unless NRC finds that appropriate protective actions, including evacuation when
.[
necessary, can be taken for any reasonabl7 anticipated population within the plume exposure EPZ.
3.
Section 50.54 is amended by adding four new paragraphs, (s), (t),
(u) and (v) = '
f 550.54 conditions of licenses 1596 012 y tQ f".9.....
ss. es
[7590-013 s.
(s) Each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a nuclear power reactor shall submit within 60 days of the effective date of this amendment the radiological emergency response p,W Stm:tn lans of ththed
- v. A'tA.
M t:'-- State and'1ocal governmental entities; wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway EPZ,1 as well as the plans of State governments wholly or partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ.
Generally, the (euintS
.. plume exposure pathway EPZ for".',. _ M:.uclear power M shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size CemetM -
and configuration of the EPIs for a particular nuclear power.jpbeam shall be determined in relation to the emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such local conditions as demography, topography, and land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such less immedi gV actions as are appropriate to protect the food ingestion pathway. d the appropriate State and local government emergency response plans have not been concurred ins by January 1,1981, the Commission will make a feedhr-besket determinatfor whether the 46eenose should eeeee b.
'tfe. ve dw opseeWow.
0;;r:th.T QQ TRu. Usw L m Meta. u %. Wn,'s4 sdis need not be -"-g.. M ifjthe deficiencies in the plan are not significant 5%sc2""
for the plant in question, #
- alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken prompt 1 gor that there are othe(r compelling reasons AcrtWV i
for continued operation. ' ee.,
C.43 v.4Xt p 5 A
y FEmergency Planning Zones (EPZs) are discussed in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants."
2NRC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and local emergency response plans leading to NRC concurrence is contained in NUREG 75/111, " Guide and Checklist for Development and Evaluation of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (December 1, 1974) and Supplement I thereto dated March 15, 1977.
1596 073.
482.0 Enclosure "A"-
[7590-01]
t.
S
_ FA,, altam=+4v.
<n - 1 =
- 3
- 7. ;;m,.,= using consiceren wouto rep..w.
ah.
1==+ % sent*aca-Of cm.au aection ou.o% s; wi. th: "a h If the plans submitted by the licensee in accordance with the sub-section have not been concurred in by NRC within 180 days of the effective oc by e - ~g I, Ies), a kA.ku#u 14 seem 3 date of this amendsen the plant in question will W do;w. J.:..
until.
n-the concurrences have been obtained. The licensee may request an exemp-
.. tion from this requirement +- -----
1- -- based upon a demonstration that any deficiencias in the plans are not significant for the plant in question g that alternative compensating actions have been or will be
/
taken promptly or that there are other compelling reasons for contined y
operation.
However, unless and until this exemption has been granted by y$hW6i e Commiss on, the plant will not be allowed to operate.]
M(3:
A (,b)
,-g b>>
eit:. :.. = L.,.
r..
- .; <<- +%-
-t; a.... ::c. ! -- c. cat:
/
sarap January 1,1981,
^'ch;...
E if during the operating license w
period of a nuclear power reactor the Commission determines that the appro -
priate State and local government emergency response plans do not warrant continued NRC concurrence,and.such State or local government fails to correct such deficiences within 4 months of the date of notification of the defects,.and until the plan is submitted and has again received NR b (reviewandconcurrence.
Com nission will make a determination whether
.ea we the - rme- : shall c;;..,.m -
,e u a..-
ss.h O g nti n-need not be s.vepended if
. /* -tRa. Amoe.= m Janumstrate. b. : r.
% - M ' i hhs the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the p% s.:h'sa,d4 rLk v
lant in question,
,M(alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly>
or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation cA i, 3m..mti.; fen; 1; tic.r-;f kcten-50 54(t' tho.
M4eg ~r-
- ite H i;.
1596 074 M-2\\
Enclosure "A"-
g
[7590-01]
)
If,6 the effective date of these amend-
=a g
r ro ss, -,s..
[
ments[andd ing the operating license period of a nuclear power reactor, the Commission determines that the appropriate State or local government emergency response plans do not warrant contin'ued NRC concurrence and such State or local government fails to correct such deficiencies within 4 months of the date of notification of the defects,and ntil the plan
.- (is submitted and has again received NRC review and concurrence. the plant in question will The licensee may request an exemption from this requirement er -----
,---=+4 ~- based upon a demonstration that any deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question er that alternative compensating actions have been or will be y
taken promptly,or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.
However,,unless and until this exemption or a waiver has been granted by,the Commi,ssion, the plant will not be allowed to operate,3*
(u) The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall provide for the development, revision, implementation and maintenance of its emergency preparedness program.
To this end, the licensee shall provide for an independent review of its emergency preparedness program at least every 12 months by licensee, employees, contractors, or other persons who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness program.
The review shall include a review and audit of licensee drills, exercises, capabilities, and procedures.
The results of the review and audit, along with recommendations for improvements, shall be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and kept avail-able at the plant for inspection for a period of five years.
1596 075
@ 2."2 Fn,.1 nc e.. 88888
bY$
[7590-013
'A fl W A 3 T n% 3 lead or [o/MuzGepe,.,4 1
7 (v)hthin 180 days after the effective date of the final rules or by January 1, 1981, whichever is soone each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a production or utilization facility shall have plans for coping with emergencies which meet the requirements of Appen-dix E of this Chapter.
3.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is amended as follows:
2 2
2 2
2 APPENDIX E--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR
~
PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1 I.
Introduction Each applicant for a construction permit is required by 550.34(a) to include in its preliminary safety analysis report a discussion of preliminary plans for coping with emergencies.
Each applicant for an operating license is req'uired by 550.34(b) to include in its final safety.
analysis report plans for coping with emergencies.
This~ appendix establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining a state of emergency preparedness.
These plans shall be described in the preliminary safety analysis report and submitted as a part of the final safety analysis report.
The potential radiological 1The NRC staff has developed three regulatory guides:
1.101, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants," 2.6, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors," and 3.42, " Emergency Planning in Fuel Cycle Facilities and Plants Licensed Under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70"; and NUREG-0610, " Draft Emergency Level Action Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants" (September 1979) to help applicants establish adequate plans required pursuant to
$50.34 and this Appendix for coping with emergencies.
Copies of the guides are available at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555.
Copies of guides may be purchased from the Government Printing Office.
Information on current prices may be obtained by writing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Publications. Sales Manager.
1596 Q76 2 2 2.3 Enclosure A"
[7590-01]
hazards to the public ass,ociated with the operation of research and test reactors are considerably less than those involved with nuclear power reactor.
Consequently, the size of the EPIs for Research and Test reactors and the degree to'which compliance with the requirements of this section and sections II, III, IV and V w 11 ined on a case-by-case basis.
using Regulatory Guide 2.6 as a standard for acceptance.
State and local
. government emergency response plans, which may include the plans of off-site support organizations, shall be submitted with the applicant's emer-gancy plans.
II.
The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report The Ptsliminary Safety Analysis Report shall contain sufficient information to ensure the compatibility of proposed emergency plans both for onsite areas and the EPZs with facility design features, site layout, and site location with respect to such considerations as access routes',
surrounding population distributions, and land use for the Emergency Planning Zones 2 (EPIs).
As a minimum, the following items shall be described:
A.
Onsite and offsite organizations for coping with emergencies, and the means for notification, in the event of an emergency, of persons assigned to the emergency organizations; "The size of the EPZs for a nuclear power plant shall be determined in relation to the emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such local conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for light water nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ an area about 50 miles in radius.
EPZs are discussed in NUREG-0396.
The size of the EPZ's for non power reactors shall be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis.
1596 077 u L4 Enclosure "A"
', ".,.'1
[7590-013 B.
Contacts and arrangements made and documented with local, State, and Federal governmental agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencies, including identification of the principal agencies.
A!.TERNATIVE (a)
C.
Protective measures to be taken in the event of an accident M
within the site boundary and within and EPZ to protect health and safety; correct to prevent das e to onsite and offsite prop a measurp' NS P 3 irt d
M of AAmt.g"tp dE y r
ALTERNATIVE (b)
C.
Protective measuretto be taken'in the event of an accident within the site boundary and within each. EPZ to protect health and safety 3 J4le procedures by which these measures are to be carried out (e.g., in the case of an evacuation, who authorizes the evacuation, how the public is tobenotifiedandinstructed,howtheevacuationistobecarriedout)3 and the expected response, in the event of an emergency, of offsite agencies;.
D.
Features of the facility to be provided for onsite emergency first aid and decontamination, and for emergency transportation of onsite
' individuals to offsite treatment facilities; E.
Provisions to be made for emergency treatment at offsite facil-ities of individuals injured as a result of licensed activities; F.
Provisions for a training program for employees of the licensee, including those who are assigned specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and for other persons not employees of the licensee whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiological emergency; 1596 078
-s G
Fnt 1nem e Han
[7590-01]
,.; 4 G.
Features of the facility to be provided to ensure the capability for actuating onsite protective measures and the capability for facility reentry in order to mitigate the consequences of an accident or,..if appro-priate, to continue operation;
~
H.
A preliminary analysis which projects the time and means to be.
employed in.the notification of State and local governments and the public in the event of an emergency.
A preliminary analysis of the time required to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations.
III.
The Final Safety Analysis Report The Final Safety Analysis Report shall contain the emergency plans for coping with emergencies.
The plans shall be an expression of the overall concept of operation, which describe the essential elements of advance planning that have been considered and the provisions that have e
been made to cope with emergency situations.
The plans shall incorporate s
information about the emergency response roles of supporting organizations and offsite agencies.
That information shall be sufficient to provide assurance of coordination among the supporting groups and between them and the licensee.
ALTERNATIVE (a)
The plans submitted must include a description of the elements set out in Section IV to an extent sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be takan in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and minimize damage to property within the Emergency Planning Zones (EP2s).2 CR y &
up I
d 1596 079
_a a roax,,,..
a.
[7590-01)
I
)
ALTERNATIVE (b)
J The plans subsiitted must include a description of the elements set out in Section IV to an extent sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety within the Emergency Planning Zones (EPIs).2
~ IV.
Content of Emergency Plans The applicant's einergency plans shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to, the following elements:
organization for coping with radia-tion emergencies, assessment action, activation of emergency organization, notification procedures, emergency facilities and equipment, training, maintaining emergency preparedness, and recovery.
The applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time required to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations.
A.
ORGANIZATION The organization for coping with radiological emergencies shall be described including definitions of authorities, responsibilities and duties of individuals assigned to licensee's emergency organization, and the means of notification of such individuals in the event of an emergency.
Specifically, the following shall be included:
1.
A description of the normal plant operating organization.
2.
A description of the onsite emergency response organization with a detailed discussion of:
Authorities, responsibilities and duties of the individual (s) a.
who will take charge during an emergency; 1596 080 aa gne.....,u,..
[7590-013 2
- b.
Plant staff emergency assignments; Authorities, responsibilities, and duties of an onsite c.
emergency coordinator who shall be in charge of the exchange of information with offsite authorities responsible for coordinating and implementing offsite emergency measures.
3.
A description of the licensee headquarters personnel that will be sent to the plant site to provide augmentation of the onsit=
emergency organization.
4.
Identification, by position, of persons within the licensee organization who will be responsible for making offsite dose projections and a description of how these projections will be made and the results transmitted to State and local authorities, NRC, FEMA and other appropriate governmental entities.
5.
Identification, by position and function, of other employees of the licensee with special qualifications for coping with emergency conditions which may arise.
Other persons with special qualifications, such as consultants, who are not employees of the licensee and who may be called upon for assistance for short-or long-term emergencies shall also ~be identified.
The special qualifications of these persons shall be described.
6.
A description of the local offsita services to be provided in support of the licensee emergency organization.
7.
Identification of and expected assistance from appropriate State, local, and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with emergencies.
8.
Identification of the State and/or local officials responsible for planning for, ordering, notification of, and controlling 1596 081 8
Enclosure "A"
[7590-01]
appropriate protective actions, including evacuations when necessary.
B.
ASSESSMENT ACTIONS The means to be provided for determining the magnitude and continued assessment of the release of radioactive materials shall be described including emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria for determining the need'for notification and participation of local and State agencies and the Commission and other Federal agencies, and the emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria along with appropriate meteorological information for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety and preveni. damage to property.
The emergency action levels shall be based on in plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite~
and offsite monitoring.
These emergency action levels shall be discussed.
and agreed upon by the applicant and State and local governmental autho-rities and approved by NRC.
Tney shall also be reviewed with the State and local governmental authorities on an annual basis.
C.
ACTIVATION OF EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION The entire spectrum of emergency conditions which involve the alerting or activation of progressively larger segments of the total emergency organization shall be described.
The communication steps taken to alert or activate emergency personnel under each class of emergency shall be described.
Emergency action levels (based not only on onsite and offsite radiation monttoring information but also on readings from a number of 1596 082
,n
s
,s.
s
[7590-01]
sensors that indicate a, potential emergency such as the pressure in con-tainment and the response of the Emergency Core Cooling System) for notifi-cation of offsite agencies shall be described.
The existence, but not the details, of a message authentication scheme shall be noted for such agencies.
D.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES i.
Administr'ative and physical means for notifying, and agreements reached with, local, State, and Federal officials and agencies for the early warning of the public and for public evacuation or other protective measures, should they become necessary, shall be described.
This descrip-tion shall include identification of the principal officials, by title and agencit., for the Emergency Planning Zones 2 (EPZs).
2.
Provisions shall be described for the yearly dissemination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning information such as the possibility of nuclear accidents, the potential human health effects of such accidents and their causes, methods of notifica-tion', and the protective actions planned if an accident occurs, as well as a listing of local broadcast network that udl.1 be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.
2.
Administrative and physical means, and the time required, spall be described for alerting and providing ions to the public h H ;T within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
It is the applicant's responsibility to en:urs that such means exist, regardless cf who implements this requirement, dIt is expected that the capability will be provided to begin alerting of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within 15 minutes of the notification by the licensee.of local and State officials.
1596 083 s
4,u =
'.. $,h,
[7590-01]
E.
EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT Provisions shall be made and described for emergency facilities and equipment, including:
1.
Equipment at the site for personnel monitoring; 2.
Equipment for determining the magnitude of and for continuously assessing the release of radioactive materials to the environment; 3.
Facilities.and supplies at the site for decontamination of ontite individuals; 4.
Facilities and medical supplies at the site for appropriate emergancy first aid treatment; 5.
Arrangements for the services'of a physician and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies; 6.
Arrangements for transportation of injured or contaminated indi.-
viduals from the site to trsstment facilities outside the site boundary; 7.
Arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed.tctivities on the site at treatment facilities outside the site boundary; 8.
One onsite and one offsite Emergency Control Center from which effective direction can be given and effective control can be exercised during an emergency; 9.
At least one onsite and one offsite communications system, including redundant power sources.
This will include the communication arrangements for emergencies, including titles and alternates for those in charge at both ends of the communication links and the primary and backup means of communication.
Where consistent with function of the governmental agency, these arrangements will include:
1596 084 eg u u,. u....... v..
[7590-01]
Provision for communications with contiguous State / local govern-a.
ments within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
Such communications shall be tested monthly.
b.
Provision for communications with Federal emergency response organizations. Such communications systems shall be tested annually.
Provision for communications between the nuclear facility, c.
State and/or local emergency operations centers, and field assessment teams.- Such communications systems shall be tested annually.
F.
TRAINING The program to provide for (1) the training of employees and exercising, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific emergency response duties, and (2) the participation in the training and drills by other persons whose* assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency shall be described.
This shall include a description of specialized initial training'and periodic retraining programs to be provided to each of the following categories of emergency personnel:
Directors or coordinators of the plant emergency organization.
a.
b.
Personnel responsible 'for accident assessment, including control room shift personnel, c.
Radiological monitoring teams.
d.
Fire control teams (fire brigades).
e.
Repair and damage control teams.
f.
First aid and rescue teams.
g.
Local services personnel, e.g., local Civil Defense, local law enforcement personnel, and local news media persons.
1596 085 30.32.
Enclosure "A",
. '.' *, N
[7590-01]
h.
Medical support, personnel.
1.
Licensee's headquarters support personnel.
j.
Security personnel.
The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of yearly drills and exercises to test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing procedures and methods, to test emergency equipment and communication networks, and to ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.
Such provisions shall specifically include participa-tion by offsite personnel as described above as well as other State and local governmental agencies. The plan shall also describe provisions for a joint exercise involving the Federal, State, and local response organizations.
The scope of such an exercise should test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without involving full public participation.
Definitive performance criteria shall be established for all levels of participation to ensure an objective evaluation. This joint Federal, State, and local exercise shall be:
/k;7Argg77yg 1.
for presently operating plants, initially within onege of the effective date of this a e e
and once every three years [ eg
$or ';n; :M :!" J'#g3ve years] thereafter.
T g
h==
==
3.
for a plant for which an operating license is issued after the effcetive date of this amendment, initially within one year of the issuance of the operating license and once every three yea %-
OPTION rs oPTio4 %
g ora 7m,. ::f s't:....tf :
ve years] thereafter.
All training provisions shall provide for formal critiques in order to evaluate the emergency plan's effectiveness and to correct weak areas through feedback with emphasis on schedules, lesson plans, practical training, and periodic examinations.
1596 086
- 89. "
Enclosure "A"
{',.,
[7590-01]
G.
MAINTAINING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Provisions to be employed to ensure that the emergency plan, its implementing procedures and emergency equipment and supplies are maintained up to data shall be described.
H.
RECOVERY Criteria to be used to determine when to the extent possible, following an accident, reentry of the facility is appropriate or when operation should be continued.
V.
Ir.splementing Procedures Within 130 days prior to scheduled issuance of an Operating License, 10 copies each of the applicant's detailed implementing procedures for
[
its emergency plan shall be submitted to g Headquarters and to the appro-Within$9 g W (, priate NRC Regional Office.
ays or ',.. y....
J.....d n, mas w
n, nns;-
80 days] after 2 _ ~~,r. _ __ _ _ d tM : 1 : "---', licensees who are
_1 i.p authorized'to operate a nuclear power facility shall submit 10 copies each of the licensee's emergency plan implementing procedures to NRC Headquarters and to the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
As necessary to. maintain them up to date thereafter, 10 copies each of. any changes to these implementing procedures shall be submitted to NRC Headquarters and to the same NRC Regional Office within 30 days of such changes.
1596 087 2.4 SV' Enclosure "A".
-