ML19257A857
| ML19257A857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257A854 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-50 TAC-12162, NUDOCS 8001090241 | |
| Download: ML19257A857 (34) | |
Text
.
p I 1%
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
[10 CFR Part 50]
Id7 b.
DEC19IO9>tj O
EMERGENCY PLANNING g-AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
es t j i@ \\
ACTION:
Proposed Rule
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after considering the public record available concerning licensee, State and local goverr. ment emergency preparedness, and the need to enhance protection of the public health and safety, is proposing to amend its regulations to provide an interim upgrade of NRC emergency planning regulations.
In a few areas of the proposed amendments, the Commission has identified two alternatives which it is considering.
In each instance both alternatives are presented in.
the following summary of the proposed changes and in the specific ~ proposed rule changes presented in this notice.
The final rule will not necessarily incorporata 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 alternative may be adopted.
Further alternatives may be adopted as a result of consideration of public comments.
In one alternative (Alternative A), the proposed rule change would not at.Lomatically require suspension of operations for lack of concurrence in appropriate State and local government emergency responsc ans on the date specified in the rule, even if tne Commission by that date has not yet determined whether the reactor should be al'. owed to continue to operate.
It would:
77 4
80010902.4-1
Liosu v j 1.
Require NRC concurrence in the appropriate State and local government emergency response plans prior to operating license issuance, uniess the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the nuclear power plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for license issuance.
2.
For nuclear power reactors already licensed to operate, if aopropriate State and local emergency response plans have not recaived NRC cencurr-ence within 180 days after the effective date of this amendment or by January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, require the Commission to determine whether to rec.uire the licensee to shut down the reactor.
If at that time the Commission finds that the licensee has demonstrated that the deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating acti,ons have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reas,ons for continued operation, then the licensee may continue operation.
If at that time the Ccmmission cannot make such.a finding, then the Commission will order the licensee to show cause why the plant should not be shut down.
In cases of serious deficiencies, the order to show cause will be made immediately effective and the licensee would be required to shut down the reactor.
3.
For nuclear power reactors alt eady licensed to operate, if appropriate State and local emergency response olans do not warrant continued NRC 1707 042 2
[7550-01]
concurrence and the State or locality do not correct the deficiencies within 4 months of notification by the NRC of withcrawal of its con-currence, require the Commission to determine whether to require the licensee to shut down the reactor.
Shutdown may not be required if the Commission finds that the licensee has demonstrated that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.
If at this time the Commission cannot make such a finding, then the Ccemission will order th, licensee to show cause why the plant should not be shut down.
In cases of serious deficiencies, the order to show cause will be made immediately effective and the licensee would be required to shut down the reactor.
In the other altarnative (Alternative S), the proposed rule change would automatically require nuclear power plant shutdown for lack of cor cur.aence in appropriate State and local government energency response plans on the date specified in the rule unless an exemption is granted by that date.
It would:
1.
Require NRC concurrence in the appropriate State and local government emergency response plans prior to operating license issuance.
- However, the Commission can grant an exemption from this requirement if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, 1707 043 3
[7590-01) that alternative compensating actions have beer or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for license issuance.
No such operating license will be issued unless NRC finds that appropriate protective actions, inclucing evacuation when necessary, can be taken for any reasonably anticipated population within the plume exposure E.:Z.
2.
For nuclear power reactors already licensed to cperate, require a licensee to shut down a reactor immediately if appropriate State or local emergency response plans have not received NRC concurrence within 180 days of the effective date of the final acendments or by January 1, 1981, whichever is sooner.
However, the Commission may grant an exemption frem this requirement if the licensee can demon-strate to the catisfaction of the Commission 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 compelling reasons for continued operation.
If there is no concurrence, and the plant is shut down, then it must remain shut down until such an exemption is granted or until concurrence is obtained.
3.
For nuclear power reactors already licensed to operate, require a licensee to shut down a reactor if appropriate State or local emer-gency response plans do not warrant continued NRC concurrence and the State or locality do2s not correct the deficiencies within 4 months of notification by the NRC of withdrawal. of its concurrence.
However, the Commission can grant an exemption to this requirement 1707 044
[7590-01]
if the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been er will be taken promptly, or that there are other ccmpelling reasons for centinued operation.
If there is no concurrence ar.d the plant is shut down, then it must remain snut dcwn until sucn an exemption is granted or until concurrence is regained.
In both alternatives the proposed rule would:
4.
Require that emergency planning considerations be extended to "Emer-gency Planning Zones."
5.
Require that applicants' and licensees' detailed emergency planning,
implementing precedures be submitted for NRC review.
6.
Clarify and expand 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, " Emergency Plans for Prcduction and Utilization Facilities."
0ATES:
Ccmments should be submitted on or before February 19,19EO, 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 Cccmission, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attentica:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of tne value/ impact analysis and cf comments received cy the Commission may be examined in the Commission's Fublic Occument Room 1707 045
[7590-01]
at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. and at local Public Document Rooms.
Single copies of the value/ impact analysis, related regulatory guides, and the NRC staff analysis of the public comments received on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be obtained on request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATICN CONTACT:
Mr. Michael T. Jacgochian, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 (Telephone:
301-443-5956).
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 plannin, and in response to reports issued by responsible offices of government and its.
Congressional oversight committees.
By memorandam dated July 31, 1979, the Commission 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 work-ability 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 comments addressed to these points and intends to hold worksnops prior to preparing a final rule to (a) present the proposed rule changes to State and local governments, utilities, and other interested parties and 1707 046 5
[7590-01]
(b) obtain comments concerning the costs, impacts, and practicality of the proposed rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering the adcption of amendments to its regulation, "Demestic Licensing of Production and Utili:a-tien Facilities," 10 CFR Part 50, that would recuire that emergency response planning considerations be extanded to Emergency Planning Zones (discussed in NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, " Planning Basis fer the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants").
Both the Ccmaissicn and EPA have formally endorsed the concepts in that E?A/NRC Report, 44 Fed. fec. 61123 (0:tober 2S, 1979).
In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering revising 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, " Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities," in order to clarify, expand, and upgrade the Ccmmission's emergency planning, regulations.1 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 precedures of 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix 9.
Under that Appendix, no new license, construction permit, or limited work authorization may be issued without Commission consideration of issues such as this.2 Both versions ITwo NRC staff guidance documents are related to this proposed rule change.
" Draft Emergency Action Level Guidelines for Nuclear Pcwer Plants," NUREG-0610 was published for interim use and commen. on September 19, 1979.
It is expected that a final version of the action level guidelines, based ca the public comments received, will be issued in early 1980.
In addition, in early 1980 ucgraded and revised acceptance critaria for evaluating emergency precaradness plans will be issued for comment and may be included in the Commission's regu-lations.
244 Fed. Rec. 55049 (November 9, 1979).
1707 047
~
7
[7590-01]
of the proposed amendments call for State and local government emergency response plans to be submitted to and concurred in by the NRG as a condi-tion of operating license issuance.
Under one alternative being considered, the proposed rule would re-quire 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 where the appropriate State and local emergency response plans have not received NRC cancurrence within the prescribed time periods.
However, the Commission could 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 plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons.
If there is no concurrence and the plant is shut down, then the plant must remain shut down ur.til such an exemption is granted or until concurrence is obtained.
The NRC presently requires that power reactor licensees and appli-cants plan for radiological emergencies within their plant sitec 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 proce:s.
To aid State and local governments in the development and implementa-tion 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 1707 048
(7550-01]
personnel and to establish criteria to guide the preparation of emergency response plans.3 However, in the past, the NRC has not made tiRC concurrence in State and local emergency response plans a conditien of cperation for a nuclear power plant; the preposed rule would do so, as explained above.
In issuing this rule, NRC recognizes the significant responsibilities assigned to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by Executive Order 12148 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 Coordinating Committee for Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness (FICCC).
In addition, NRC and FEMA have agreed to exercise joint responsibility for 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 Ccmaission does not believe that the reexaminatica should serve as a basis for delay in the propose'd rule change.
At several places in the proposed amendments, the Ccemission 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 cperation of a nuclear 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 Governmen Radiological Emergency Response Plans 'in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (December 1, 1974) and Supplement i thereto dated March 15, 1977.
The adequacy of tais guicance is being reevaluatec by the staff and.ne Commission will consicer codi-fication of the upgraded crit'eria in 1930.
1707 049 9
[7530-01) pc,wer plant.
The Commission recognizes that it cannot direct any govern-mental 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 government.s have the primary responsibil-ity under their constitutional police powers to protect their public, the Commission, under authority granted to it by the Congress, also has an important responsibility to protect the public in matters of radio-logical health and safety.
Accordingly, with an understanding of its limitations and with a sensitivity to the importance of all levels of governments working together, the Commission 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 aftermath of the accident at Three Mile Island that safe siting and design-engineered features alone do not optimize ptotection of the public health and safety.
Before the accident it was thought tnat adequate siting in accordance with existing staff guidance coupled with the defense-in-depth approach to design would be the primary public pro-tection.
Emergency planning was~ conceived as a secondary but acditional measure to be exercised in the unlikely event that an accident would happen.
The Commission's perspective was s2verely 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 clearly that on-site conditions and actions, even if they do not cause significant off-site to 1707 050'
(7590-01]
radiological consequences, will affect the way the various State and local entities react to prot e the public frcm dangers, real or imagined, asso-ciated with the accidenc.
A conclusion the Commission draws from this is that in carrying out its statutory mandate to pre.ect the public health and safety, the Ccmmission must be in a position to know that off-s_ite governmental plans have been reviewed and four.d adequate.
The Ccmaissi:n finds that the public can be protected within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act only if additional attention is given to emergency response planning.
The Ccmmission recognizes that the increment of risk involved in operation of reactors over the prescribed times in the implementaticn of this rule does not constitute an unacceptable risk to the public health and safety.
Tha Ccamission recognizes that this proposal, to view emergency plan-ning as equivalent to, rather than as secondary to, siting and design 'in public protection, departs frcm its prior regulatory acproach to emergency plaining.
The Commission has studied the various proposals and believes that this. course is the best availab e choice.
In reaching this deter-mination, the Commission is guided by the findings of its Emergency Planning Task Force which found the need for intensive effort by NRC cver the next few years to upgrade the regulatory program in this area.
The Commission has also endorsed the findings of the EPA-NRC Joint Tuk 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 pcssible in assisting those governmental units and those utilities responsible for execution of the plans.
The Commission acknowledges the input of ever one hundred commenters to date on the proposal to adcpt new regulations.
The staf' evaluation 1707 051 11
[7590-01]
of these comments is incorporated by reference herein as part of the record in this rulemaking proceeding.
In addition, the Commission acknowledges the important centributions made this year by various official c:=menters en 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 Ac' counting Office issued coincident with the TMI accident which explicitly recommended 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.
GAO Report, EMD-78-110, " Areas Around Nuclear Facilities should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies" (March 30,1979).
In additien, the NRC Authorization Bill for FY 1980 (5.562) would aiend 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 Commission's views of the health and safety significance of emer-gency planning.
One of the Commission's House Oversight Subcommittees developed a comprehensive document en the status of emergency planning wnich recccmended 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 recommenda-tions were significant and its findings about the need fcr impreved emer-gency preparedness lend support to che NRC's own efforts to assure that the public is protected.
Finally, the Presicent's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island has recently recommenced approved State and local plans as a condition for resuming licensing.
This Cc= mission's 1707 0.52 12
(7590-01]
Report and its supporting Staff Reports on emergency responses and prepared-ness are indicative of many of the prcblems which tne NRC woul'd address in this rule.
In this regard the Commission notes that the alreacy extensive record made on emergency planning improvements will be supplemented by the report of its own Special Inquiry Group and other ongoing investigations, by any requirements of the NRC Authorization Act, and by the public commen.s
~
solicited by this proposed rule.
The proposed rule meets many of the concerns discussed in the above mentioned reports and publications.
However, the Commission notes that the proposed rule is considered as an interim upgrade of NRC emergency planning regulations anc, in essence, clarifies and expands areas that have been perceived to be deficient as a result of past experiences.
Because the Commission anticipates that further changes i-the ecergency planning regulations may be proposed as more experience is gained with implementing these revised regulations, as the various Three Mile Island investigations are concluded, and as,tne results beccme available from efforts in such areas as instrumentation *and monitoring and generic studies of accident models, these proposed rules may require further mocifications.
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 Recister supersedes and thus eliminates the'need to continue development of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (43 Fed. Rec. 37473),
published on August 23, 1978, regarding Emergency Planning consicera-ions outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
The Commission is conside. ring whether construction permits wnica have alreacy been issued should be reconsidered because of tne emergency 1707 053 13
Li590-Olj planning considerations of this rule.
For plants in operation, NRC teams are now meeting with licensees to upgrade licensee, State and* local emer-gency plans and implementing procedures.
In developing these proposed rule changes, the Commission nas con-sidered the potential consequences, social and economic, as well as safety, of the shutdcwn of an operating nuclear pcwer plant.
Under both alter-natives, the substantive criteria to be applied in evaluating whether or not a licensee should be allowed to continue to operate the reactor are the same.
Thus, both alternatives reflect the view that, while emergency planning is important for public health and safety, the increment of risk involved in permitting operation for a limited time in the absence of concurred-in plans may not be undue in every case.
However, the alternative rule changes differ primarily in the course of action that would follow either non-concurrence, lack of concurrence, or withdrawal of concurrence in relevant state or local emergency plans.
Under one alternative (Alternative A) an order to show cause why the licensee should not shut down the plant may be issued in this circumstance, but the order to show cause would not be made immediately effective unless.
the Commission decided in the particular cases that the safety risks were sufficiently serious to warrant such irr. mediate action.
Under the other
~
alternative (Alternative E), the licensee would be required to shut dewn the plant immediately in this circumstance.
Unless and until an exemption is granted, the licensee will not be allowed to operate the reactor.
The NRC contemplates that under Alternative A initial concurrence and su:: sequent withdrawal, ir necessary, would be noted in local newspapers.
Under Alternative B, public notice of any initial concurrence or withdrawal of concurrence would be made both in the Federg Recister and in local 1707 054 14
[7590-01]
Notice in the Federal Recister and in local newspaters will newspapers.
also be provided of any required suspension of operation, any* request for an exemption fron this requirement, and any request that an ocerating license be exempt frca the requirement for concurred-in. plans.
Public comments 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 ar.d to answer questions.
Accordingly, in the discharge of its duties to assure the adetuata protection of the public health and safety, the Commission has decided to issue proposed rules for puolic comment.
Thc proposed changes to 10 CFR ss 50.33, 50.47, and 50.54 apply to nuclear power reactors only.
However, the proposed Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 applies to production and utilization facilities in general except as noted in the proposed Appendix E.
These proposals, comments, other official reports, and views expressed at the public workshops will be factorsd into the final rule, which the NRC now anticipates will be published in early 1980.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 553 of title 5 of the Unitec States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amencments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
Copies of comments received on the proposed amendments may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at local Public Document Rooms.
1707 055 15
[7590-01]
PART 50 - COMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTICN AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
Paragraph (g) of Section 50.33 is revised to read as follows:
5 50.33 Contents of acclications: ceneral information.
n a
n n
x (g)
If the applicaticn is for an operating license for a nuclear power reactor, the applicant shall submit radiological emergency response plans of State and local governmental entities in the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Pla ining Zcne (EPZ), as well as the plans of State governments wnolly or partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ.1 Generally, the pl ume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power reactors shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway E?Z shall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the EPZs surround-ing a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relaticn to the emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such local conditions as demography, tcoegraphy, land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus en such less immediute actiers as are a: pro-priate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
'Emergenc/ Planning Zones (E?Zs) are ciscussed in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basic for the Development of State and Local Gr.vernment Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Lignt Water Nuclear Power Plants."
O i
1707 056 15
[7590-01]
2.
A new section 50.47 is added.
Alternative versions of the first paragraph are presented.
s 50.47 Emercency clans.
[ ALTERNATIVE A No cperating license for a nuclear pcwer reactor will be issued unless the emergency response plans submitted by the applicant in accorcance with s 50.33(g) have been reviewed and concurred in by the NRC.
In the absence of one er more concurred-in plans, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the sati: faction of the Commission that 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 ccmpelling reasons to permit operation.] OR
[ ALTERNATIVE B No operating license for a nuc' ear pcwer reactor will be issued unless the emergency response plans submitted by the applica t in accordance with s 50.33(g) have been reviewed and concurred in by the NRC.
An appli-cant may request an exemption from this requirement based ucon a demonstra-tien by the acplicant that any def.iciencies in the plans are not significant for the piant in question, that alternative ccmpensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons 2NRC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and local emergency resonse plans leading to NRC concurrence is contained in NUREG 75/111, " Guide and Checklist for Development and Evaluatica of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (Decemoer 1, 197a) and Supole-ment 1 thereto dated March 15, 1977.
1707 057
.a 17
[7590-01]
to permit operation.
No sucn operating license will be issued unless NRC finds that appropriate protective actions, including evac 0ation when necessary, can be taken for any reasonably anticipated population within the plume exposure E?Z.]
Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power p' ants shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway E?Z rhall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the E?Zs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in relation to the emergency response needs and capa-bilities as they are affected by such local conditions 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 pathway.
3.
Section 50.54 is amended by adding four new paragraphs, (s), (t),
(u) and (v).
Alternative passages for subsections (s) and (t) are provided:
s 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
n s
n x
x (s)
Each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a nuclear pcwer reactor shall submit within 60 days of the effective date of this amendment the radiological emergency response plans of State and local governmental entities in the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway E?Z, as well as the plans of State governments wnolly or partially within the ingestion pathway E?I.
Generally, the plume exposure pathway E?Z for nuclear power reactors shall
- Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) are discussed in NUREG-0396, " Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Gonrnment Radiological Emer-gency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants."
1707 058
t _
a y
f.
.-- _ _ _ y,
[7590-01]
l 1
1 consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway l'
EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the E?Zs for a particular nuclear pcwer reactor shali be determined in relation to the emergency. response needs and capab'ilities as they are affected by such 1ccal conditions as demcgraphy, tcpography,
+
and land characteristics, access routes, and local jurisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such less immediate 4
actions as are appropriate to protect the feed ingestion pathway.
[ ALTER-NATIVE A:
If the appropriate State and local government emergency re-2 sponse plans have not been concurred in within 180 days of the e.ffective date of the final amencments or by January 1, 1931, whichever is sooner,
~
the Commission will make a determination whether the reactor should be M
shut down.
The reactor need not be shut dcwn if the licensee.can demon-strate to the Commissien's satisfaction that the daficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, cr that there are other ccm-peiling reasons for continued operation.] OR [ ALTERNATIVE B:
If the plans l
submitted by the licensee in accordance with the subsection have not oeen ccacurred in by NRC within 180 days of the effective date of this amend-ment or by January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, the reactor in question 4
will be shut down until the concurrences have been obtained.
The licensee
~
may request an exemption from this. requirement based upon a demonstration that any deficiencies in the plans are not sicnificant for the plant in
- "NRC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and iccal emergency resense plans leading to NRC concurrence is containec in NUREG 75/111, " Guide and Checklist for Development and Evaluation of State and Local Government. Radiological Emergency Response ?lans in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities" (December 1, 1974) and Supple-menc 1 thereto cated March 15, 1977.
1707 059 19
= _.
' ..i e
g y *
~
[7590-01]
question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken prcmptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued cperation.
However, unless and until this exemption has been granted by the Commission, the plant shall be maintained in the shutdown condition.]
[ ALTERNATIVE A (t)
If, after 130 days follcwing tne effective date of these amend-ments or January 1,1931, whichever is scener, and during the operating license period of a nuclear power reactor the Commission determines that the apprcpriate State and local government emergency response plans c:
not warrant continued NRC concurrence and such Sta.e or local government fails to correct such deficiencies within 4 months of the date of notifica-tion of the defects, the Commission will make a determination whether the reactor shall be shut down until the plan is submitted and has again received NRC review and concurrence.
The reactor need not be shut down if the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in questien that alternative compensating acticns have been er will be taken premptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.] OR
[ ALTERNATIVE B (t)
If, after 180 days folicwing the effective date of these amend-ments or after January 1,1981, whichever is sconer, and during the cperat-ing license period of a nuclear power reactor, the Ccmmissica determines that the apprcpriate State or local government emergency ressanse plans do not warrant continued NRC concurrence and such State or local government fails to correct such deficiencies within a months of the date of notifi-cation of the defects, the reactor in question will be shut down.
The 1707 060 20
[7590-01]
licensee may recuest an exemption frca this requirement based upon a demon-stration that any deficiencies in the plans are not significan't for the plant in question, that alternative ccmpensating acticas have been or will be taken prenptly, or that there are other ccrpelling reasons for continued coeration.
Mcwever, unless and until this exemption has been granted by the Commission, the piant snail be maintained in the shutdown condition.]
(u)
The licensee of a nuclear cower reacter shall provice for the development, revision, implementation and maintenance of its emergency preparedness program.
To this end, the licensee shall crevide 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 peri;d of five years.
(v) Within 180 days after the effective date of the final rules er by January 1,1981, whichever is sconer, each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a production or utilization facility shall have plans for coping with emergencies whicn meet *.he recuirements of Appen-dix E of this Chapter.
mm m
3-D
. S o
we e
1707 061 21
[7590-01]
4.
1C CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is amended as follows:
x x
x x
x APPENDIX E--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIEST I.
Introcuction Each applicant for a cons ruction permit is required by 9 50.3a(a) to include in its preliminary safety analysis report a discussion of preliminary plans for ccping with emergencies.
Each applicant for an operating license is required by @ 50.34(b) to include in its final safety analysis eport 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 ar.d submitted as a part of the final safety analysis report.
The pctential radiclegical hazards to the public associated wit,h the operation of research and test reactors' are consicerably less than those involved with nuclear power reactor.
Consequently, the si e of the EPZs for Researcn and Test reacters and the degree to which compliance with the requirements of this section 1NRC staff has developed three regulatory guices:
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 Uncer 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70" and NUREG-0610, " Draft Emergency Level Action Guicelines for Nuclear Power Plants" (September 1979) to helo applican s establish acecuate plans required pursuant to s 50.34 and this Appendix for coping with emer-gencies.
Copies of the guices are available at tne Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C., 20555.
Copies of guices may be purcnased from the Government Printing Office.
Information on current prices may be cbtained by writing the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Puolicatiens Sales Manager 1707 062 22
[7E90-01]
and sections II, III, IV and V is necessary will be determined on a case-by-case basis using Regulatory Guide 2.6 as a stand 3rd for acdeotance.
State and 1ccal governmant emergency response plans, which may include the plans of offsite support organizations', shall be submitted with the applicant's emergency plans.
II.
The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report shall contain sufficient information to ensure the cc:patibility of precosed emergency plans both for onsite areas and the EPIs with facility design features, site. layout, and cite location with respect to such ccasiderations as access rectss, surrounding population distributiens, and land use for the Emergency Planning Zones 2 (EPZs).
As a minimum, the folicwing 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;'
B.
Contacts and arrangements made and documented with lccal, State, and Federal governmental agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencies, including identificatica of the principal agencies.
2The size of the EPZs "cr a nuclear power p' ant shall be determined in relation to the emergency response needs anu capabilities as they are af fected by such local conditicns as demography, tcpography, lanc cnaracteristics, access routes, anc local jurisdictional bcundaries.
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.
E?Zs are discussed in NUREG-0396.
Tne sice of the EPZ's for non power reactors shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.
1707 063 23
[7590-01]
[ ALTERNATIVE A C.
Protective measures to be taken in the event Of an accicent within the site bcundary and within eacn EPZ to protect health and safety; corrective measures to prevent damage to ensite and offsite prcperty; and the expected response, in the event of an emergency, of cffsite
~
agencies] OR
[ ALTERNATIVE B C.
Protective measure to be taken in the event of an accident within the site boundary and within each EPZ to protect health and safety; pro-cedures by which these measures are to be carried out (e.c., in the case of an evacuation, who authori es the evacuation, how the public is to be notified and instructed, hcw the evacuation is to be carried out); and the expected response, in the event of an emergency, of cffsite' agencies];
D.
Features of tne f acility to be provided for onsite emergency first aid and decontaminaticn, 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 es a. result of licensed activities; F.
Provisions for a training prcgram for empicyees of the licensee, including those who are assigned specific authority and responsibility in the event of an emergency, and for other persons not empicyees of the licensee wncse assistance may be needed in the event of a radiological emergency; G.
Features of the faci.lity to be orovided c ensure the caca:ility for actuating onsite protective measures and the capacility for facility 1707 064 24
[7590-01]
reentry in order to mitigate the consequences of an accident or, if appro-priate, to continue opera 1.fon; H.
A preliminary analysis which projects the time and means to be employed in the notification of State and local governments and che public in the event of an emergency.
A preliminary analysis of tne time requirec to evacuate varicus sectors and cistances within the plume exposure pathway EFZ for transient and permanent populations.
III.
The Final Safety Analysis Report The Final Safety Analysis Report shall contain the emergency clans for ccping with emergencies.
The plans shall be an excression of the overall concept of operation, which describe the essential elements of advance planning that nave been considered and the provisions that have been made to cope with emergency situations.
The plans shall incorporate information about the emergency response roles of supporting organizations and offsite agencies.
That information shall be sufficient to provide assurance of ccordination 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 taken in the event of an emergency to protect public health and safety and minimize damage to pecperty within the Emergency olanning Zones (E?Is). ] OR 1707 065 25
[7590-01]
[ ALTERNATIVE 3 The plans submitted must include a description of the elements set out in Section IV to an extent sufficient to cemenstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event cf an emergency to protect public nealth and safety within the Emergency Planning Zenes (EPZs).23 IV.
Content of Emergency Plans The applicant's emergency plans shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to, the following elements:
organization for coping with radiation emergencies, assessment action, activation.of emergency organiza-tion, nctification precedures, emergency facilities and equipment, training, maintaining emergency preparedness, and recovery.
The applicant shall also provide an analysis cf the time required to evacuate varicus sectors, and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent pcpulations.
A.
ORGANIZATION The organization for coping with radiological emergencies shall be described including definitions of authorities, responsibilities and cuties 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 organi:ation.
2.
A description of the onsite emergency response organization with a detailed discussion of-a.
Authorities, responsibilities and duties of the individual (s) who will take charge during ar emergency; 1707 066 y
[7590-01]
b.
Plant staff emergency assignments; c.
Authorities, responsibilities, and duties of an onsite emergency coordinatcr who shall be in charge Of the excnange of information with Offsite authorities responsible for coorcinating and it plamenting offsite emergency ceasures.
2.
A description cf the licensee heacquarters personnel. hat will be sent to the plant site to provide augmentation of the ensite emergency organization.
4.
Identificatica, 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 5 tate and iccal autnerities, NRC, FEMA and other appropriate gcvernmental entities.
5.
Identification, by positica and function, of other emcicyees 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 empicyees of the licensee and who may be called upon fo-assistance for short-or long-term emergencies shall also be identified.
The special qualifications of these persons snal' be described.
6.
A description of the 1ccal offsite services to be provided in support of the licensee emergency organization.
7.
Identification of and expected assistance from appropriate 5 ate, local, and Federal agencies with responsibilities for coping with emergencies.
1707 067 em de L k.,
o o
y
.6 27
[7590-01]
8.
Identification of the State and/or local officials responsible for planning for, ordering, notification of, and centrolling acpr0priate protective actions, including eva_;ations when necessary.
3.
ASSESSMENT ACTIONS The means to be provided for determining the magnitude and continued assessment of the release of radioactive materiais shall be described including emergency action levels that are to be usec as criteria for determining the need for notification anc participation cf local and State agencies and the Cc mission and other Federal agencies, and the emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria along with apprcpriate meteorological information for determining when protective measures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety and prevent damage to preperty..The emergency action level.s snall be based on in plant conditions and instrumentation,in addition to onsite and offsite monitoring.
These emergency action levels shall be,discussec and agreed upon by the applicant and State and local governmental authc-rities and approved by NRC.
They shall also be reviewed with the State and local governmentai authorities on an annual basis.
C.
ACTIVATION OF EMERGENCY OFGANIZATION The entire spectrum of emergency conditions which involve tne alerting or activation of progressively larger segments of the tc:al emergency organization shall be described.
The ccmmunicaticn stecs taken to aler:
or activate emergency personnel uncer each class of emergency shall be described.
Emergency action levels (based not only en cnsite and offsite radiation monitoring information but also on reacings frcm a nuccer of 23 1707 068
[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 cffsite agencies shall be described.
The existence, cut not the details, of a message authentication scheme shall be noted for such egencies.
D.
NOTIFICATION ?ROCEDURES 1.
Administrative and physical means for notifying, and agreemen.s reached with, local, State, and Federal officials and agencies for the-early warning of the public and for public evacuaticn er other protective measures, should they become necessary, shall be described.
This descrip-tion shall include identification of the principal officials, by title 9
and agencies, for the Emergency Planning Zones' (EPZs).
2.
Provisions shall be described for the yearly dissemination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning informatien such as the possibility of nuclear accidents, the potential human health effects of such accidents and their causes, metnocs of notification,andtheprotectiveactionsplannedifanaccidenkcccurs, as well as a listing of local broadcast network that will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency.
3.
Administrative and physical means, and the time required, shall be described for alerting and providing prompt instruc.icns t
the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
It is tne applicant's responsibility to ensure that such means exist, regarciess of who imalements this recuirement.
2 "It is expected that the cacability will be previded to essentially comolete alerting of the public within the plume exposure pathway E?Z within 15 minutes of the notification by the licensee of iccal and Sta.e Officials.
1707 069 29
[7E00-01]
E.
EMERGENCY FACILITIES AND EQUI? MENT Provisions shall be made and described for emergency facilities and equipment, including:
1.
Equipment at the site for personnel monitoring; 2.
Equipment for detarmining the magnituce of anc f:r continucusly assessing the "eisase of radioactive materials to :ne environment; 3.
Facilities and supplies at the site for decontamination of ensite individuals; 1
Facilities and medical suc,71ies at the site for appropriate emergency 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 treatment facilities cutside the site boundary; 7.
Arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed activities on the site at treatment facilities cutside the site boundary; 8.
One onsite technical support center and one near-site emergency operaticn center frcm which effective direction can be given and effective controi can be exercised during an emergency; 9.
At least one onsite and one offsite ccmmunications system, including redundant pcwer sources.
This will include the communica icn arrangements for emergencies, including titles and alternates for those in cnarge at both ends of the communication links and the primary and backup means of communication.
Where consistent with functica cf the governmentai agency, these arrangements will include:
1707 070 30
[7530-01' a.
Provision for communications with contiguous State / local govern-cents within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Icne.
Sucn C0mmunications shall be testec monthly.
b.
Provision for cc.mmunicatiens with Federal emergency res:onse organications.
Such c:mmunicaticns systems shall b3 tasted arc.ually C.
Provision for c;mmunications betaeen che nuclear facilit., Sca a and/or local emergency cperations centers, anc field assessment teams.
Such communicacions systems shall be tested annually.
F.
TRAINING The program to provide for (1) the training of empicyees and exer-cising, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific emergency re-sponse duties, and (2) the parcicipation 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 cf special-ired initial training and periodic retraining programs to be provided to each of the folicwing categcries of emergency cersennel; a.
Directors or coordinators of the plant emergency crgani ation.
b.
Personnel resconsible for accident assessment, including con rol reem shift personnel.
c.
Radiological 90nitoring teams.
d.
Fire control teams (fire brigades).
e.
Repair and damage control teams.
f.
First aid and rescue teams.
g.
Lccal services personnel, e.c.,
iccal Civii Defense, local law enforcement personnel,.ind iccal news media persons.
1707 071 31
[7E90-01]
h.
Medical support personnel, i.
Licensee's headquarters support personnel, j.
Security personnel.
The plan shall describe provisions for the concuct of yearly crills and exercises to test the adequacy of timi.g and content cf implementir.;
procedures and methods, to test emergency acuipment and ccamanication networks, and to ensure that emergency organizaticn 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 provisiens for a joint exercise involving the Federal, State, and local response nrganizations.
The scope of such an exercise should test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without involving full puolic 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:
1.
for presently operating plants, initially within one year of the effective date of this amendment and once every [ ALTERNATIVE A three years] or [ ALTERNATIVE S five years] thereaf ter.
3.
for a plant for which an operating license'is issued after the effective date of this amendment, initially within one year of the issuance of the operating license and once every [ ALTERNATIVE A three years] or [ ALTERNATIVE E five years] thereaf ter.
All training provisions shall provide for formal critiques in order to evaluate the emergency plan's effectiveness and to correct weak areas 1707 QL72 32
[7590-01]
through feedback with emphasis on schedules, lessen plans, practical training, and perfedic examinations.
G.
MAINTAINING EMERGENCY 3RE?AREONE55 Provisions to be empicyed to ensure that the emergency plan, its implementing procecures and emergency ecuionent and supcifes are main-tained up to date shall be described.
MCuJ /...y
...m
- Ki
..M.
Criteria to be used to determine when to the extent possible, folicwing an accident, reentry of the facility is apprcpriate or when operation should be continued.
V.
Implementing Procecures No less than 180 days prior to scheduled issuance of an cperating license,10 ccpies each of the acpiicant's detailed implementing prcce-dures for its emergency plan shall be submitted to NEC Headcuarters and to the appropriate NRC Regional Office:
Provided tr.at, in casel where the cperating license is scheduled to be issued less than 180 days after the effective date of this rule, such implementing procedures shall be submitted as scen as practicable.
Within 60 days after the effective date for compliance under 5 50.54(v) with the revised Appendix E, licensees who are authoriced to operate a nuclear pcwer facility shall submit IC ccpies Each of the licensee's emergency plan implementing procecures 10 NRC Headquarters and to the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
As necessary to maintain them up to date thereafter, 10 copies each of any changes tc tnese implecenting precedures shall be sucmitted to NRC Heacquarters anc to the same NRC Regicnal Office within 20 days of such cnanges.
1707 073 33
- s. i : :.;
(Sec. 151, Pub. L.33-703, 53 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201); Sec. 201, as agended,Pec. L.92-438, 88 Stat. 1242, Pub. L. 94-79, 89 Stat. 413
(-2 U.2.C. a:41).)
d Dated at Wasning cn, D.C. this kD' day of p "14%
A.
1979.
~cr the Nucisar Regu:a cry Ccm-issicn.
I r
m2 ~ + s
, AmR
- o W
5amuel J.i Cniix Secretary of thh Cc. mission e
1707 074
.