ML19260C024
| ML19260C024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/05/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7912180249 | |
| Download: ML19260C024 (51) | |
Text
9. 7
+ s copy e
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON SECY-79-591A/B/C
-(
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date. Wednesday, 5. December 1979 Pages 1-12
~
1613 266 Teiephone:
i (202)347 3700 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
~
WReponers Q.
- :/J;O;
~
444 North Capitol Street
. -....... DES.A.;gLNAVONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY
-7
...-:T((5:
4 ".
,_ ashington, D.C. 20001 W
p u s.,
y
. _:.yd:g:p.
z c;d
, 3.z.
.. g.. : r......,
79ygigo
.;;.j.,. %.c.
'~
~ ~
w e
me-
CR8673 1
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on December 5, 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain
' inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
a.
e 4
~ ' ~ ~
1613 267 e
G
=
9 e
g 9
O
=
e._
2 R8673 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s1 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING S
6 DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON SECY-79-591A/B/C 7
8 9
10 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
II Washington, D.
C.
12 Wednesday, 5 December 1979 13 The Commd.ssion met, pursuant to notice, at 10:38 a.m.
I4 BEFORE:
15 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 16 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner I7 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner I9 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 LEONARD BICKWIT jfj} }gg 22 23 24 Ace-rederal Reporters, Inc.
25
3 spk P 3,g g g g g I,N_ E S,,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we can come to order please; 2
the Commission meets this morning -- I think that's correct 3
this time -- to continue its discussion on the emergency 4
planning rule, the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
We have had a series of meetings with versions of the proposed 6
rule going back and forth.
7 I would ask that we all keep in mind that we are 8
~
discussing sending this document out for public comment and 9
providing substantial time so that the comment can be carefully prepared.
We're not passing here on a final rule.
Secondly, I would comment about the current version which is before us, that it seems to me now to be,~in fact, 14 in good shape to go, and I would hope that we might be able to come t(a fairly speedy agreement.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is this a short notice 17 meeting?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, because it's a continuation of the series, why, it's been judged by the appropriate scholars in the Sunsh'ne Act as nldt" to require a short notice i
~
21 voting -- a vote for short notice.
22 Now, what I would propose to you is that we, 23 in principle, scan from front to back in the following sense:
^ * * " * * * " " ' " * -
since it has been around a number of times, why, it certainly 25 1613 269
4 doo3 I
must be getting pretty familiar to everybody at this time.
2 Let me just ask for pages on which you'd like to make comment 3
or argument,or whatever.
4 There is an alternate paragraph on page 16, so 5
I know that one appears, and we'll discuss that.
But does 6
anybody have any note before page 16 that we ought to take up?
7 (No response.)
8 On to page 16.
9 There is here as an alternative paragraph to the 10 one which in the current. draft starts at the bottom of page 16 II and runs to the middle of page 17.
I guess -- let me say 12 for myself that it seemsto me that it either -- pages 16 and I'3 17, the language there or Commissioner Bradford's language, Id it gets us where we want to go with this thought.
15 I don't have strong feelings.
16 Peter, may I ask, if we were to go with yours,
~
17 for instance, would you consider putting in the uecond line 18 where it says, "considering the potential consequences,"
I9 could I put. in there or ask you to put in "for consumers of 20 electric power of the shutdown."_,,
21 This -- my intent here is that when this staff 22 and this Commission talk about consequences, it's more often 23 in the context of looming clou'ds of radioactivity.
And I 24 wanted to make explicit.-- see explicit the fact that it is Am+ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 power service side.
1613 270
~
9
5 P
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As long as that is indeed A
I 2
in people's minds, I would put that in; I think I would say, 3
" including," and then your phrase, just so it doesn't say 4
that those are the only consequences.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was going to propose 6
changes, but since we're discussing this, I wonder if we ought 7
not to add " permitting operation for a limited time."
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which one are you looking 9
at?
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Either one.
II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was going to propose that 12 for eith'er version.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
I4
_ CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have nd objection to that; 15 I think it's clear that we don't contemplate that it be fine 16 and dandy just to ignore emergency planning and have a unit 17 operate indefinitely without any plan.
18 We have recognized.the need for a transition here, I9 and we also recognize the need that sometime in the future, 20 if something happened,in._a st, ate _ plan that was found to 21 be unsatisfactory, why we presume there would be efforts to 22 fix it.
23 And again there would be a transition period which 24 might in particular circumstances allow certain units to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 continue to run I would'.have no objection to " permitting
,..f. 4 $$ ' ~
1613 271
6 sp5 I
operation for a limited time in the absence."
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And how would you, Peter, 3
modify Joe's proposal?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Joe had -- let's see.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEANRE:
He had said, "In considering 6
the potential consequences for consumers of the electric 7
power."
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And I would just make that 9
" including those for consumers of electric power."
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
Now, wait, what Il does that mean?
What are the other things, the other 12 consequences that you visualize the sentence applying to?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, for one thing, the 14 working crew is going to be out of jobs.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Did you have that in mind, 16 Peter?
~
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What had occurred to me 18 was there was a general set o.f socioeconomic as well as 19 safety consequences inherent in shutting down a plant, and --
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we say that?
I 21 have this -- I have this naive notion that is we just say 22 what we mean, the public will understand us better.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don' t want to be an 24 opponent of almost anything that one might want to say here.
Aerederal Reno,ters, Inc.
25 S
$ lb }f}
O'
7 sp6 Obviously, to the extent any of these concerns are in any Commissioner's mind, it is fair to say that we are not unmindful of them.
3 I just thought that the shorter sentence was needed.
Why doesn't semebody propose whatever modification they had in mind, and I will probably think that is fine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I wasn't proposing any at 7
all, but -- you know -- as long as we're going to propose 8
some, I'm suggesting that we try to make them as clear as we 9
can.
And I thought you just did it very well when you said, " safety and socioeconomic consequences."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't much care for the 13 word, " socioeconomic."
14
-(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't know that we have 16 a thesaurus here, but we can' certainly get one.
(Laughter.)
If that's what we mean, that's what we ought to say.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
'I can accept any of the 21 three combinations I've heard, along with the one that is 22 written here.
23
. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Assuming one of those will W Rooms, lm be madC -- and I don't really Care which one, as long as it's 25
'I 1613 273
8 sp7 clear what we mean -- and I don't mean something else --
I 2
then could I ask a difference question, which is:
if that is 3
the case, I'm not exactly sure what it is -- how this one 4
is different from the other one.
5 I thought maybe you could help me in this regard, 6
Peter.
I mean, I have no objection to it.
I don't know 7
what the difference is.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My only intention was to 9
make it shorter.
I found something about the phrase --
10 about the -- that we had taken the long way around in saying, II "not unmindful of potential disruptive consequences to 12 consumers of electric power."
13 It seemed to be a very long way of saying that 14 we consider the consequences.
And that was my,only --
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- purpose in doing it.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it gets to the -- it 18 gets to the same place in - _
I9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: In the interest of getting 20 something before the public, I wil.1 accept any words in the 21 paragraph.
22 CHAIRMAN HDNRIE:
Let me try --
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'll accept it too.
2#
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me try a version, working Ace rederal Reporters, Inc.
D in Peter's:..,.. ".In developing these proposed rule changes, the
..: r
>s,-
35;3 g74
9 I
Commission has considered the potential consequences, sp8 2
social and economic, as well as safety, of the shutdown of 3
an operating nuclear power plant."
4 How does that ring upon the ears of the multitude S
here?
i 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Fine.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I knew you'd agree.
You've 10 agreed to everything along the line.
II (Laughter.)
12 All right, we will put that in in the last sentence 13 of this paragraph:
the increment of risk involved in Id permitting operation for a limited time in the, absence,"
15 et cetera.
16 I will then propose this paragraph to replace
~
17 the one on pages 16 and 17 of the text.
18 Okay?
I9 (Chorus of ayes.)
20 It is unanimously agreed to.
21 Going post-page 16-A, comments short of 37?
22 (No responte.)
13 I wish there were some way that a chairman could 24 establish an amiability bank -- you know.
I could bank some Aciarederal Reporters, Inc.
25 1613 275 J
l 10 sp9 this morning and use it another time.
1 (Laughter. )
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The only suggestion I have 3
is to carry all of these proceedings to the point of sheer 4
exhaustion.
You'll probably get there.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 37'--
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It hasn't worked so far.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Down under Roman V, 8
" Implementing Procedures," the General Counsel, I believe, y
comes forward and suggests that there is another class of 10 object that it would be u'seful to have, explicitly, a scheduled recognition here in some of those operating 12 licenses where at least in principle it is possibl4 that 13 one or.another of them might be ready for some advanced 14 licensing process before the -- before the effective date --
before a time 180 days af ter the effective date of this rule we're looking at. - - -
17 And there is a sentence in here that says, "Provided 18
~
that.....such.; implementing procedures shall be submitted as soon as practicable,"
which seems evident at this time.
20 Comments? '
~
~~
~'
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine, fine.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I tdke it as accepted.
We will 23 therefore put in the OGC's Roman V version.
~
24 There is only a three line page 38; 'it is part of 25
~
l613 276
~~
11 sp10 the same paragraph.
I assume we do not have substantial objection to that.
Yes?
My God, if you're going to raise some further point, I'll come across the table and throttle you right here Sefore the multitude.
MR. BICKNIT:
There is just one other point on 6
page 37.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes?
8 MR. BICKWIT:
A change from the original version 9
to --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, yes, the 60 days; it's the 60 days after the effective date for compliance with 50.54 (b).
And that in turn now reads, "180 days" after this 13 pacage becomes final or January 1, 1981, whichever is sooner.~
15 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
17 I take it that's the language CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
we agreed to, so I think everything is fine there.
~
And let me add, because the future -- God knows what 19 it holds -- we all recognize that we adopted that language in 20 order to simply come 'down in ~the "for comment" version; at 21 some specific time we v3?'
'et~ comments on it.
And if people, ell us that they can do it twice as 23 fast, why we'll cut it down.
If they say that there 's no way, dwW Reponen, l*
we'll have to consider what other things to do. ~
25
- i..
1613 277
12 spli But at any rate, it is now set that way. Do I have it right?
MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll just ask us to vote on the 4
amended package to go out.please.
All those in favor?
6 (Chorus of ayes.)
We're unanimous on it.
8 All right, Mike, get out there and get going.
MR. BICKWIT:
Technical changes?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If there are typos in it, fix them, for God's sake, or misspelled words or punctuation or the other accoutremen'ts of rapid communication.
Changes the nots -- change the no to yes -- yes to no.-- wfil to will not.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Changing yes to no is shorter, which is always an improvement.
(Laughter.)
~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
(Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., -the meeting was adjourned.)
~'~
~~
1613 278 22 23 24 Ameedoral Reporters, Inc.
25 f*e 4m a
t,75fr0-01 J e
NUCl. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[10CFRPart50]
EMERGENCY PLANNING AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Proposed Rule
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, after considering the public
' record available concerning licensee, State and local government 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 pro-posed changes and in the specific proposed rule changes presented 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 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 automati-cally require suspension of operations for lack of concurrence in appropriate State and local government emergency response plans on the date specified in the rule, even if the Commissinn by that date has not yet determined whether the reactor should be a,llowed to continue to operate.
It would:
1613 279 e
[7590-01) 1.
Require NRC concurrence in the appropriate State and local government emergency response plans 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 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 appropriate State and local emergency response plans have not received NRC concurrence 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 require the licensee to shut down the reactor.
If at that time the Com-mission finds that the licensee has demonstrated 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, then the licensee may continue operation.
If at (Me that time the Commission cannot make such a finding, then the Commission will order the licensee to show cause why the plant should not be shutdown.
In cases of serious deficiencies, the order to show cause will be made immediately effective and the ;hr.t licensee would be required to sh'ut down the reactor.
1613 280 2
[7590-01]
3.
For nuclear power reactors already licensed to operate, if appropriate 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 by the NRC of withdrawal of its concurrence, require the Commission to determine whether to require the licensee to shut down the r.. d ar-sc. r 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 com-pelling reasons for continued operation.
If at this time the Commission cannot make such a finding, then the Com-mission will order the licensee to show cause why the plant should not be shutdown.
In cases of serious deficiences, the order to show cause will be macie immediately effective and the p?e.r.4 licensee would be required to shutdown the reactor.
In the other alternative (Alternative Bl the proposed rule change would automati-cally require nuclear power plant shutdown for lack of concurrence in appro-priate State and local government emergency 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 3
1613 281
[7590-01]
. 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 license issuance.
No such ooeratino license will be issued unless NRC finds that accroariate orotective actions, in-cluding evacuation when necessary, can be taken for any reasonably antici-pated population within the clume exposure EPI.
2.
For nuclear power reactors already licensed to operate, require a licensee to shut down a uWar p '. r 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 amendments or by January 1, 1981, whichever is sooner.
However, the Commission may grant an exemption from this requirement if the licensee can demonstrate to the satisfaction 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 t
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 shutdown until such an exemption is granted or until concurrence is obtained.
3.
For nuclear oower reactors already licensed to coerate, require a licensee to shut down a n.ur p~:Or reactor if appropriate State or local emergency respons plans do not warrant continued NRC concurrence and the State or locality does not correct the def%iencies within 4 conths of notification by the NRC of withdrawal of its concurrence.
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 plant in question, that alternative cor.?ensating actions have been or 4
1613 282
[7590-01]
,will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.
If t_here is no concurrence and the plant is shut down, then it must remain shutdown until such 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 " Emergency Planning Zones."
5.
Require that applicants' and licensees' detailed emergency planning implement-ing procedures be submitted for NRC review.
6.
Clarify and expand 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E
" Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities."
' DATES:
Comments should be submitted on or before (60 days after publication).
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 Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of the 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, and the NRC staff analysis of the public comments received on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be obtained on request.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. ".ichael T. Jamgochian, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 (Telephone:
301-443-5966).
1613 283 5
[7590-01]
SUPPL 9tEtiTARY It!F0PJtATI0ft:
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.
?,y memorandum dated July 31, 1979, the Connission reouested that the f;RC 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 crepared on an expedited basis.
Ccnsequently, considerations related to the workability of,,the proposed rule may have bean overlooked and significant inpacts to f1RC, 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 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) obtain comments concerning the costs, inpacts, and practicality of the proposed n21e.
The t'uclear Regulatory Commission is considering the adoption of anendnents to its regulation, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,"
10 CFR Part 50, that would recuire that emergency response planning considerations be extended to E ergency Planning Zenes (ciscussed in MUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016, 1613 284 c
[7590-01]
" Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plants").
Both the Commission and EPA have formally endorsed the concepts in that EPA /HRC Report, 44 Fed. Reo. 61123 (October 28, 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 Commission's emergency planning regulations.I Prior to the conclusion of this rulemaking proceeding, the Commission will give special attention to emergency olanning natters, 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 authoriza-
. tion may be issued without Commission consideration of is, sues such as this.2 Both versions of the proposed amendrents call for State and local government emergency response plans to be submitted tu and ' concurred in by the NRC as a condition of operating license issuance.
I Two NRC staff guidance documents are related to this proposed rule change.
" 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 coments received, will be issued in early 1980.
In addition, in early 19?O upgraded and revised acceptance criteria for evaluating emergency preparedness plans will 52 issued for comment and may be included in the Commission's regu-lations.
2 a4 Fed. Rec. 65049 (:'ovember 9,1975).
D"*D "D N
, S
..k a
_wo o
1613 285
[7590-01]
Under one alternative being considered, the proposed rule would re-quire a detemination on continued cperation 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 concurrence within the prescribed time periods.
However, the Commission could grant an exenption to this requirement if the 1icensee 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 shu,t down until such an exemption is granted or until concurrence is obtained.
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 cmergency response planning has been related to the nuclear licensing process.
To aid State and local governments 'n the development and implenentation of adecuate c ergency response plans. the GC. in coniunction with several other r deral agencies, has attempted. on a cc::erative and voluntary basis. to e
cr: vide #cr trainine and instruction e' ha:e and local ;cvernrent persennel and 1613 286 00h [ ))]Q O
[7590-01]
to establish criteria to guide the preparation of emergency response plans.3 However, in the past, the !IRC has not made tRC concurrence in State and local emergency response plans a condition of operation for a nuclear power plant; the proposed rule would do so, as explained above.
In issuing this rule, fiRC recognizes the significant responsibilities assigned to the Federal Emergency Planagement Agency (FE!!A) by Executive Order 12148 on July 15, 1979, to coordinate the emergency planning functions of executive agencies.
In view of FEMA's new role, fiRC agreed on September ll.
1979, that FEMA should henceforth chair the Federal Interagency Central Coor-dinating Committee for Radiological Energency Response Placning and Preparedness
( FICCC).
In addition, flRC and fella have agreed to exercise foint respon-sibility for concurring in State emergency response plans prior to fiRC issuance of operating licenses.
During the next few months f4RC and FE!'A will continue to reexamine intra-federal relationships and responsibilities regarding radiological emergency response planning.
However, the Com-mission does not believe that the reexamination should serve as a basis for delay in the proposed rule change.
At several places in the proposed anendnents, the Commission refers to the roles of State and local governments.
Indeed the main thrust 3
- !RC staff guidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and local emergency response plans leadir; to i:EC concurrence is contained in.NUREG 75/111, " Guide and Checklist for Cevelcpnent and Evaluatien of State and 1.ocal Governmen Radiological E. ergency response Plans in Sucport of Fixed ':uclear Facilities" (Cece. der 1, if 72) and Supole ent 1 thereto dated !! arch 15, 1077.
The adecuacy of this guidance is being reevaluated by the staff and t50 Co--ission will consider codi-
- ication of the upgraded criteria in 1920.
ga a
,g woM o ju S..klh 1613 287 9
[7590-01]
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 p.>rier pl ant.
The Commission recognizes that it cannot direct any govtrn 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 governments have the primary responsibility under their constitutional police powers to protect their public, the Cornission, under authority granted to it by the Congress, also has an.
important responsibility to protect the public in matters of radiological health and safety.
Accordingly, with an understanding of its limitations and with a sensitivity to the importance cf all levels of governments working together, the Commission will commit to seek and apply the neces-sary resources to make its part in this venture work.
Rationale for Chance The proposed rule is predicated on the Commission's considered judg-ment in the aftemath of the accident at Three Mile Island that safe siting and design-engineered features alone do not Optinize protection of the oublic health and safety.
Before the accident it was thought that adecuate siting in accordance with existing staff guidance coupled with the defense-in-dertn approach to design would be the orf ary Dublic protection..Emer-
- cncy
- lanning.as conceived as a secondary tn additional easure to be 1613 288 Mk O
[7590-01]
exercised in the unlikely event that an accident would happen.
The Com-mission's perspective was severely altered by the unexpected sequence of events that occurred at Three 1111e 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 radiological consequences, will affect the way the various State and local entities react to protect the public from dangers, real or imagined, associated with the accident.
A conclusion the Commission drats from this is that in carrying out its statutory mandate to protect the public health and safety, the C0nmission 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 bes4 protected within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act only if additional attention is given to emergency response planning.
The Commission recoonizes that the increment of risk involved in ooeration of reactors over the prescribed times in the implementation of this rule does not constitute an unacceptable risk to the public health and safety.
The Commission recognizes that this proposaf, to view emergency plan-ning as equivalent to, rather than as secondary to, siting and design in public crntection. departs from its crior regulatory approach to emercency
- l ar.ni ng.
The Crnission has studied the varicus :rocosals and believes that this course is the best available chice.
In reaching this deter-nination the CO-issicn is guided by the "n:S ;s of its.cergency Planning D"
lD
- M '3'[ M men eM L UAL 1613 289
[7590-01]
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 emergency planning.
One of the Conmission's House Oversight Subcommittees developed a comprehensive document on the status of emergency planning which recommended that NRC, in a leadership capacity, undertake efforts to upgrade its licensees' emer-gency 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 t'RC's own efforts to assure that the public is protected.
Finally, the President's Commission on the Accident at Three l'ile Island has recently reccamended approved State and local plans as a condition for resuming licensing.
This Commission's Report and its suoporting 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 Commission notes that the already extensive record made on emergency planning improve-ments will be supplemented by the report of its own Special Inquiry Group and other ongoing investigations, any requirements of the flRC Authorization Act, and by the public comments solicited by this proposed rule.
The crocose: rule : eets many of the c ncerns discussed in the above sc-tioned reports and publications.
'Joweve. t"e "c--ission notes that the p-::: sed rule is censidered as an interin ;:gra:e of NRC emergency planning r gJatiens and, in essence, clarifies and ex; ands areas %at " ave been D""D
- ]D NY ooM a nL 11 16 3 290 13
[7590-01]
perceived to be deficient as a result of past experiences.
Because the Commission anticipates that further changes in the emergency 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 the results become available from efforts in such areas as instrumentation and nonitoring and generic studies of accident rodels, these proposed rules may require further modifications.
Thus the proposed. rule changes should be viewed as a first step in improving emer-gency planning.
Publication of these proposed rule changes in the Federal Recister supers? des and thus eliminates the need to continue development of the croposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (43 Fed. Reo. 37473),
published on August 23, 1978, regarding Energency Planning considerations outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
The Commission is considering whether construction permits which have already been issued should be reconsidered because of the emergency plan -
ning considerations of this rule.
For plants in operation, NRC teams are now meeting with licensees to upgrade licensee, State ?nd local emergency clans and inolenenting procedures.
- t ': ' por-tar.t-to r.o te--tha '
-t s
- s P : " -,
'"a W
',2
<-.'d
-'.t
- ..t:~'.ti::ll
- r I.d C ' C JS99 44
- : ':'. # :": :t ' ':' ::'
- ' 'O r s
1613 291 14
G e
blh O0Oe M L
Lt i
..J te sI44 i
- 4J(t C
a e
tl1et(
t4et4 L9: s3 e -
)7rtett 4J
- t*4rc-ifi (tL*(t 8
iste(t
- (
t&
i-t P
' i p>
p B
b Ln I
1l 3
iI l
iL i
F 171wtt i
0 ttrt(
ttt9(t 4Jt$0t440$
L J (I r 1 O tc
<E i
ct r(O0 44t e 1.
-n s
l ip,.' i p
i ' i -
l
' i i > >
l I
> i i t(((!L1o[(0 i
)Jvt *
- t
- e tt4 rt etCe 4
4 i* i p
7p 1C(
E([
ott
[(C4 e/ 9 i r c 4($tm4M0(
i(8 - Ct4s 4JC :rC[
(
5g i
)f f
- tiB, p: > a e
i
- 7 i > -
s -
p pb bi p
l 4 J#4 tI4(
e 7t4t1]
- 49(
J<t J(
1r7(
e 4 4J
(.
((
t4e ((
4 J e' 4 I(:(t 9
t<
N)
- I L) :3 t
3:3 8
):3) 8 Js 8).
' *:1 8 - ):
- 11 1)9
- 237 )
j 9 8:s
))
i
- 3 h
g Et1*<7 4 1(t 8
Ir 14 e* i:er1 :E%4 rLT 4Je4 t7(J i
4e t9c*4 J
[0tc4tT t
2 t *1[
C
(
- JI)ss
);
8 L).
- - 8s -
f.
B.
D i
- I
':l 8
e5 p.
l lp 83 i1 ip
>.t F
l
'r l
a e 4(c 94 2
t4 e.
4Jr4 4J(
4r ( 4r%4:
t 4(
1(rt(
g aeE1(4 J(
i 9[
e tJ:4 T( g
- E u i 8) 3 i ).t a:3 8 8:)
- $) - -
83-33.
- )
s a) s -
Ly D
s >
pp.
I - :
gt - I -3a
- m i 8
)
- 4J(:4 E(t(
i9L 4 e* :(
t(Etf(:LE((t 4(
4Jf to(Ie0 r*;9tt 4J O S.0
.Je Ct(
1t
- *. is8 i):8 n - i.
e 5LP -
B
>):i3p-
)
pia 6
i i,L 1
n i
4Jt1c er%t(
r4(4, 1Ee t (1 L
4Je 4 r7 85(
J e-Jr4 4 e* (
4J(
t e
L<tE(
e
- g(
'(:
(t(
t 1
3 s:a.
e
- i s
B>:L=-
-)
Ij 3
1 8 - ): -
2:)
-)*
- 3-83i).
- .'3 8
")3
- s L.
).
8
)L) gr: ttta(te O t,tJ 4J(
LC t(gL Ct:tt(fL
- (
1" tt J(4J(1 4r I(1[e4 1(e e4(1
(.t
- t
),
o itp g
t i
pt) i> i i,'1 t
>pe p
- s
- p p>
-7 8
-).
- i L)
)ja
- )
i aIe1ea*(
6J e-3 Le. s s -, -i -
1 je4(t[ r4*:
- J e* r (
4J(
e *
- [
tt t
e -
C t(14rt4 4(
Je w t (1EE(tr e t 1
I:
2) s 5 -
9 9
5
)
L iL) i
- w
- L>.
2j: * - )
L)J - - >
a 2 at C s
- y s q 4.,> fg.8:* a h *t M. q L.14 e
t v4 4 J e= t ey 4 4 9
- G
- 1@ 4q [A) J h e9':
<t4t 4J 4
(
rtttC{Ca4 t4 EetJ t
s.,-
G.
3 J =).
s: s
) s s
8)
-3
-)
1 p
7
)
5 p
h p
p b.
p >
p a
lJ a.t'its
(
t e 4 r- ( E.
4t 4J ct 44
(
i C
f 4
e 1
l e s p
a t([i;ttCTIet C nEa ea i
p > ii p i L
i >
e4
-t7:
e
- L 4: (t0
'L ra(
e * >. ii s
> - i 3
pi>
r FJ( 1(4(5(
- t t" tt 4JeL c
-)
-)
p a n
p#
5
- t i -
- D
)49:(
r 4(tLt' 4Ji tr et4 tt eT L(4 J(
tJ: 4 7(_
t e- [
7 a 8
J a
i * ': *i a
- > p i
)
s )
,q 4%:
- =
e e
(t (otC ei(tte e4C-7 7t i
Ctt 4J C
TC44te a%iL tt
- 1(
e: 4 4 e- (%(
4r.
1 4(l:9e(7 g
n - - 3 pp i P p>
l
>i
) -
1 pl a D
I t
p e t 7
Ds
-)
' 8 3
1a.
- i I3 i
4f ;,
1rt4 L:(J rt4%((
84 4JC 4(
,i
- ,S.-
s e
3s, pp >
p 8
f i)44(*(L(
e tt a1t L(4 te*tt %4*t rL4 4(
4J(
5 p
s
-)
- Je i
)
)
,i
)3.
) -
8 geS4*4:re1
((;(5 E -
e84 e
- c
.t U4r4f 4:t7L Jrla e c 4Jr*(e4(7 4t 1 art l J(
(g
,, n 8
ps - s 6>
L 5'
D ei=r -
- p P3 8) s 73
'3 e
i s)
)
J3 l#)
- J 4s8))
4/e 4%st r e e5, 4J(
- O,(
rt i
i t(1a e*
e 7<(: e 4(
(tf4(t4w(
f t.
J b
1 t s 4 r* 4 4% ( 7 4Je 4 4
lt t
3
-a i)) -
3ss.
s L
)
ti 8
t
- f1
)
)
s t
p 9 D r s )'
- I L
)
')l s
g (1 4Je 1rJe*t J(# 1e4J Ctt t r 4( 47 4Jt(I(J ee4t A(
>:a 6i.
e s>
l i
ti 5
>t eP B
e4*;C l(rLL i
it t
(
- 4 i '
r Ii t
8 ni **
Pp h
i ce
- ((ec t3( 1tEtt0 e
(teg7 e.
(r-r5t e= t t(t e:tt4 ** t i
"e* 4J e t
- n i
e > i i
8 t #
pg
.t 1
>)
1
)
i s:I[et4eI" r"t(
L t e e 1 5 s-e
- iI o) i#s' ee e ie e e
< 4t t I',ti 4(
4t t 4E e.*(
4
- e e, i e
> 'i - -
i > P 6
> r ** t t L t o E' t(
(
I 8
t r
i >
5c.
E0
~J !
4_
Ir ct4 f(
i l
6 l
.t t
el ai4 Je ta -
(t"
- t -, ' et4 4 _t t
a 4e etet e :e 9 t.
4tt
't tt tt Je 9
L i
i.
5
- )
i tt
- I i e 1 *i -
1 e
8.
- a e
- 9 ii -
9 e*t tt4t e 4 e* ( (
9 gt, e-t; e
ett es t
tt[(
s 1
et
- t4(
e t
ile-((C4(>4 8:a4( tO (Ell(i4et i
l r
.>i,i i
i t
' i t
e e.
e t t:i e. i e* e-tte t
r(
( tt 1t1 i i O
(((
, i n s i e i o
it p sI si s i
1 I -
)
)
8.
s -
t *
- m
@N P
e 9
- t I
(
E' r i e
a s
' i U
7 p
(>
t n
(:
F e
C ar-(
p (p
e' l 9
4 (p
i e
- 1 ti
()
r 1
Os L
(p 4
C J
(
i 4
J 1
lJ L9 Os 4J t
43 r 1 4
(
t 4
1.
e n 4
J :
4 8
e l
i s
i se
- e 4>
t
( )
43 (P
( u 1
()
4 8
Tl le t
t Gl M
1.
()
4
{
t "t I E:
()
{
()
e--
5.
EL
- e i
ti L
1 e s
()
t i
1:
71 l i
()
l to
- )
+J r-rj t )
O Cl Cp
- I si) i Cp e-(
- i J
9
()
( )
s 1
1
()
4 8 e
e C
g (p
(L o
E L
( L J
s 1.
4 J
t 3 Q
5 t
1
(
i e
1 4
1.
7 3
1
()
ti
- e 8F 4
r "I
i en O
t e
O)
(
P 1
(
p
- t I
(11
(
is
'i -
( L 4
I L
~)
()
et t
(
14 3 t I
()
J p
r J
t
.I
()
t
( 8 e
3 t
1 4
J:
- 1 3
.L.
Us N
E!
- l 4
t p
4 4
t p
9 s t
(
3 t
~
L.
tJ r
e s,
i e
(
t o
e i e
u.
e.I r
e a
p 1
(
s
.s
- p 4
e' s 9
( f fL t)
- t I
(8
- e-3 4
t.p f
J a
O L.
9 e
j 9
e-*i t.p e
s I
4 8
4
()
.I t
i e
s t '
J s
[
( I r
e 1
9 en C
m r
()
E J
t t
3 1
1 e
8 an th I
k 9
1)
- ,t i
r t
(
1*
e-(
l "t I e
( )
J 3
t.8 8 )
O M
(
J "t
I
( l 3
()
e-4
(*
- e (P
e ti e i t
J :
e j t
5 f)
(p tP
[.*
O 4
8 t
e
(
p 1.
t I C
(p 4
4 b
tt 4
r e
1
(
e t
i e
1
(:
s i
t n
( L 1
()
C) r)
=
t>
(
p rp
( )
er r
s')
E:
4 5
L) 4J w
73 1
(si t u a
s 1.
12 t
i e
(
s t'
(s
()
4 8
(s
(
p
(
( >
- e 1
t e
1.
s 4
cs vi r1 4
(L 0
1 1.
t p
4 t
ri c.
(
a e
t s
e l
t i
. s-Os t
(s e's
.e J
e l
i s
as u
5
(:
e I
e (3
t
< s t I
(
4 t:
(
1 t :
t o
a e
r
(
s r.. i s
i 1
4 s
t re t
s en su 4
(
8 t
O n.
r 9
i :
e p
( r a
a f
4
(
- 08
- 3 s
s t
i i
l 4
( i e
s s t s
o
(
1 e s
()
O e
Ja (s
Li e l
( L L
i 4
8 s
rl J
1 1
e's s
4 8
4
- c Gs
- t 3
4 3
ein 4
i t
s l
t 4
i s
e a
n
( r*
e s
e-t 1 J
et t en t
o e
p C
t.
t r
(
(p
.i 4
- t i
5.
J I
4 J.-
C M
25 t
I r
1.
E )
- )
( )
ft.
L i 4 7 1
5 1
()
!I (7
L)
C)
J
()
( 1 4
()
( >
4 8
()
')
('
tr E '.
e
(
t iL f
J 4
0
(
(3 t i
( )
ta L.
?
t) 4 '
()
41 3
4 8
4 a
r 5
4 e
i 8
(D E
s--
48 m
()
(
f f
[
t C1 8-s'I L.
J
) )
73 C,8 l
g
()
4 J
4
- L
- c-7 1
1.
Ele g
5.
4
( )
rp t
n e
e f r) t t
4 '
8 ti
(
1 e
(
e j
r t
p
=
4 9
4J L
e j t"
()
(;
1 f
R.
(
9 e'5 Ls t i 4
8 6
t
=
11 O
1 41
l J
1
(
p
(
s
(,1 4
e t
y g
e 3
e p, g
i q) p t 1 "t I L
4 8
4 t 7 J
"t,i 1
f 7
C.>
.1:
e-t
'l t
E en 1.
4
(,)
()
- I L
t:
r-I t
e-(D 9
4
- e O
9-9
()
1 C) 4 C7 L:
7 I
(
4
- i L L
E O
to eI
(
J
(
tp 8
k.
(
( )
4 E
Ci L2 eiI 4
- i.
4 4
O
'O 4 '
E:
(l v
J:
(,)
()
rp
=e
- e
't I i
t1 Ci
()
e i
L 4
8 4
- 77 J'
J 4
1
(>
(
t,t CD LI J
(
p G
e--
t i 4
CL 01 a
p 4
4
(,
()
e)
J e
5
( L
- s "t
p
(
4 p
- U
(
p 9
ti E
4 8
(p J
4 8
(
(T*
(
8
(
d)
=e-4 r
Il 4
()
- 1 1
B ri a
a3 sil l
- t3 J
t E
t >
4 '
4-1
()
1 E
E W1 4J
(
(J C
(
- to 1.
1
- e v-1 Gi C
e-r
[i 4
1 1:
ti r3 w
[
- e 4
8'
(
b
!p to
.C Qs i 't
- 3 5.
[
4 '
(l
- 1 tn
(>
c
()
t t
I',
t >
l
()
7 e--
t 9
e t
I t 7 i
t e
1
(~.
L' 4
ti 4*
4J E
P e 1 4
(
(9 ia e- -
r t
I I fe 4
i O
4 1.
J
- t i
T3 r
' )
- e e--
t i
9 "I
p t
it
(
r)
E D
( l i
t (s
(.s E
e'I e
a 4
8 e'5 E
- e 4
8 I.
8 L.
t
'"t) a 4 i
(
9 rj f )
l
(
p
(
1 :
E
( )
[
f L i TI
( l 4
8
- e-(LI
(
J!
L1 4 '
4 8
t) 1 E
a E
(:
5.
4 h
(
a g
i
()
r i
I 4 *
()
( l ri e 3 7)
L 5
4 1
(p r
E P
t)
()
C
( r 4
C) 48
(
t1 4
7 J
t) 4 2
.1:
( L t
8 J
J t
3 i
4
- e l
- e. -
r3 4
5 tj 4
8 f)
L' 5
to a
7 5
C) 4-O L7 1
- t8 l~.
- e*
J
( )
(l r
7
()
- i 4
8 4
8 4 '
LJ t
O 4
8
(
p t
(
()
4 8
9 J) e 71 Lt
(:
t' C
4-e Ct
(:
3 "I
I
(
- e -
% 8 4 P
- e 1
- 1 E I
()
EJ
- 11 r -
U e--
(7 f 3 5.
1
- 1
()
( )
( L 4
- I
()
L' "t,e
{
~
[
(>
JJ t
e D
/
- 3 e I (p
t in t i e 1 L)
()
l e 3
( s t
3
(
i r
- 1 4
(*
's r
i I*
t i
E a
E:
E t )
t ^
e e
i 1.
1.
4
( L L
+-e t7
()
t 3
E 4
"I )
( )
9
)'
1 t )
.L
- e
- e
- e
( I C
t 3
()
ei I
5 e
1 J
l t
P r i 1
8.
E. '
e p 4
1 t )
4 *
- 3
- )
1 L
"t)
[
4
- i I
L t
l'
( f*
()*
t t
r
]
l
-3
( )
I
( ',*
a 3 0
t
- f e
4 i e
i L
E 7
(
p
()
w e
i s
e g
ti a:
Ji J
ts
(,
e e i
.,e 1
1 1
1.
to J:
a i
e e
MR. BRADFORD HAS PROPOSED THE FOLLOWING ALTERNATIVE TO THE PARAGRAPH THAT BEGINS AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE Id In develocing these proposed rule channes, the Commission has considered the potential consecuences of the shutdown of an
. operating nuclear power plant. Under both alternatives, the substantive criteria to be apolied 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 icoortant for public health and safety, the increment of risk involved in permittine operation in the absence of concurred-in ol. ins may not be undue in every case.
1613 294
-18A-
[7590-01]
cower that would follow from shutdown of an operating nuclear power plant.
Indeed, under both alternative rule changes, if the emeroency olan deft-ciencies are not significant for the particular power plant. the NRC is satisfied that there is adequate protection for the public health and safety through alternative means (e.o., good local emergency plans in conjunction ydth an augmented licensee response. etc.), or there are other cor.pelling reasons, the licensee may not be required to shut down the clant.
Thus, both alternatives reflect the view that, while emergency d'anning is necessary for public health and safety, the increment of risk ir.volved in permitting operation in the absence of concurred-in plans may n:t be undue in every case.
However, the alternative rule changes differ primarily in the course o# 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 tare su##iciently serious to warrant such inmediate action.
Under the other a' ernatise (Alternative 3), the licensee would be recuired to shut down
- :- ciant inrediately in this circunstance.
Unless and until an exeration
't
-Ented. the litersee will not be ali:wed to 0:erate t"e reactor.
1613 295 17
[7590-01]
The NRC contemolates that under Alternative A initial concurrence and subsequent withdrawal, if 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 Federal Recister and in local newspapers.
Notice in the Federal Recister and in local newspapers will 1so be provided of any required suspension of operation, any recuest for an exemption from this reouirement, and any recuest that an operating Mense be exenot from the reouirement for concurred-in plans.
Public commants will be welcomed.
If sienificant interest in neetine with the staff is exoressed, the staff may hold public meetings in the vicinity of the site to receive and discuss coceents and to answer cuestions.
Accordingly, in the discharge of its duties to assure the adequate protection of the public health and safety, the Commission has decided to issue proposed. rules for public connent.
The proposed changes to 10 CFR !9 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, connents, 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 1930.
]6]}
296 10
[7590-01]
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 is contemplated.
Copies of comments received on the proposed anendments may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at local Public Document Rooms.
PART 50 - DG1ESTIC LICENSING OF PROD' CTION J
AND U' LIZATION FACILITIES 1.
Paragraph (g) of Section 50.33 is revised to read as follows:
! 50.33 Contents of acolications; ceneral information.
(g) 'If the application 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 partielly within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Plan-ning Zone (EPZ), as well as the plans of State governments wholly or par-tially within the ingestion pathway EPZ.1 Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power reactors shall consist of an area about 10
-iles in radius and the ingestion pathway E9Z s.all consist of an area about 53 niles in radius.
The exact size and can'icuration of the EP:s I
E ergency Planning Zones (EPZs) are ciscussed in ':' EE3-0395, " Planning J
Easis for the Ocvelopment of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency *es ense 31ans in Suptort o' Light '.'ater *:Jclear Power 1613 297
$$ [gyg
[7590-01]
surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in rela-tion 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.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such less immediate actions as are appro-priate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
2.
A new section 50.47 is addad.
Alternative versions of the first para-graph are presented.
! 50.47 Emercency plans.
[ ALTER!!ATIVE A fio operating license for a nuclear power reactor 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 tiRC.2 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 not significant for the plant in question, that alternative compensating actions have been or will be taken pronptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to pemit operation.]
[ALTERt!ATIVE B 1613 298 No operating license for a nuclear rmeer reactor will be issued unless 2
NRC staff cuidance for the preparation and evaluation of State and 1ccal c ergency resonse plans leadinc to *:RC concurrence is contained in NUREG 75/111, " Guide and Checklist #ce Develop ent and Evalua-ion of State and Local Governcent Radiclegical E.mergency Pesponse Plans in Suoport of Fixed fiuclear Facilities" (December 1,1974) and Supple-ment 1 thereto dated l' arch 15. 1977.
D "
- lD
- lD 3~
10 M e M M{IAL S f'
[7590-01]
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 applicant may request an exemption fran this requirement based upon a demonstration
.by the applicant that any deficiencies in the plans are not significant for th,e plant in question, that alternative compensating actions haye been or will be taken pronptly, 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 neces-sary can be taken for any reasonably anticipated population within the plune exposure EPZ.]
Generally, the plune exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles in radius and the ingestion pathway EFZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles in radius.
The exact size and configuration of the EPZs 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 ir.rediate actions as are approcriate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
3.
Section 50.54 is anended by adding four new caragraphs, (s), (t), (u) and (v).
Alternative passages for subsecti:ns (s) and (t) are orovided:
i 50.54
- nditions of licenses.
1613 299 w
w w
w l
[7590-01]
(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 plans of State and local governmental entities in the United States that are wholly or partially viithin the plume exposure pathway EPZ,I as well as the plans of State governments wholly or partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ.
Cener-ally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power reactors 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 and configuration of the EPZs for a particular nuclear power reactor shall be detemined in relation to the energency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such local conditions as demography, topography, and land characteristics, access routes, and local furisdictional boundaries.
The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such less immediate actions as are' appropriate to protect the food ingestion pathway.
[ ALTER-NATIVE Ai If the appropriate State and local government emergency re-2 sponse plans have not been concurred in within 180 days of the effective date of the final amendments or by January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, the I
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 Uater Nuclear Power Plants."
2 i:RC staff cuidance for the preparation and evaluation cf State and local emergency resonse plans leading to NRC concurrence is contained in NUREG 75/111. " Guide and Checklist #cr Develr ent and Evaluation of State and Local Government Radiolacical Emergency Resconse Plans in Support of rixed Nuclear Facilities" (?ccc-ber 1.1970 and Supple-rert 1 thereto dated fiarch 15, 1977.
pgg iBN 1613 300 22
[7590-01 ]
Commission will make a determination whether the reactor should be shut down.
The reactor need not be shut down if the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction the deficiencies in the plan are not sig-nificant 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.] or
[ ALTERNATIVE B If the plans sub-nitted by the licensee in accordance with the subsection have not been concurred in by NRC within 180 days of the effective date of this amend-ment or by January 1.1981, whichever is sconer, the plant reactor in cuestion will ce shut down until the concurrences have been obtainad.
The Ifcensee may recuest an exemption from this recuirement based upon a demon-stration that any 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 However. unless and until this exemption has been granted by the Commission, the plant will not be allowed to operate. shall be main-tained in the shutdown condition.]
[ ALTERNATIVE A (t)
If, after 180 days following the effective date of these amendments or January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, i# during the operating license period of a nuclear :ower reactor the Co-ission deternines that the appro-priate State and local government emergency resnonse olans do not warrant cen-inued URC concurrence and such State c-iccal covernment ' ails to correct such deficiencies within 4 cnths :'
re date of noti'ication o' the D""D
- D'T 23 1613 301
[7590-01]
defects, the Cor: mission will make a determination whether the reactor shall be shut down until the plan is submitted and has again received flRC 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 question, alternative compensat-ing actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for continued operation.]
[ALTERf!ATIVE B (t)
If, after 180 days following the effective date of these amend-ments or after January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, and during the operat-i'ng license period of a nuclear power reactor, the Commission determines that the appropriate State or local government emergency response plans do not warrant. continued itRC concurrence and such State or local government fails to correct such deficiencies within 4 months of the date of notifi-cation of the defects, the reactor in cuestion will be shut down.
The licensee may request an exemption from this requirement based upon a demon-stration that any 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.
However, unless and until this exerotion or a waiver has been granted by the Comission, the plant
- t 5: :: :1 -
- :-:t shall be raintained in the shutdown condition.]
(u)
The licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall crovide for the dcvelc; rent, revision, implementation and aintenance of its e ergency 1613 302 2:
[7590-01]
preparedness program.
To this end, the licensee shall provide for an independent review of its emergency preparedness program at least every 12 conths by licensee, employees, contractors, or other persons who have no direct responsibility for implementation of the emergency preparedness prograa.
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.
(v)
Within 180 days after the effective date of the final rules or by'
' January 1,1981, whichever is sooner, each licensee who is authorized to possess and/or operate a production or utilization facility shall have plans for coping with emergencies which teet the recuirements of Appendix E of this Chapter.
4.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, is amended as follows:
APPENDIX E--91ERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIESI I
NRC staff has developed three regulatory guides-1.101, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants," 2.5, " Emergency Planning for Research Reactors," and 3.42. " Emergency Planning in Fuel Cycle Facilities and Plants 'icensed Under 1C CFD. Parts 50 and 70"; and NUREG-0510. "Draf t Energecy Level Action Guidelines #cr l'uclear Power Plants" (Septenber 1979) to helo applicants establish adecuate plans recuired cursuant to ! 50.2d and this ;::endix for :opir.g with ener-gencies.
Copies of the guides are available at the Oc--ission's Public Document Roon,1717 H Street, ',.,1,'ashingt:a. 2.C.,
20555.
Ocpies of guides may be purchased fr:
the Goverr. e : Orinting Office.
Infomation on current prices cay be cb:ained by.criting the U.S.
Nuclear P.egulatory Co-,ission, !,'ashi g cn. D.C. 2:555,1:tention:
Publications Sales Manager.
1613 303 00b U$$0$
2
[7590-01]
I.
Introduction Each applicant for a construction permit is recuired by 5 50.34(a) to include in its preliminary safety analysis report a discussion of pre-
'liminary plans for coping with emergencies.
Each applicant for an operat-in'g license is reouired by i 50.34(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 hazards to the public associated with the operation of research and test reactors are considerably less than those involved with nuclear power reactor.
Conse-cuently. the size of the EPZs for P,esearch and Test reactors and the degree to which compliance with the requirements of this section 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 standard for acceptance.
State and local govern-nent emergency response plans, which may include the plans of offsite support organizations, shall be submitted with the applicant's emergency plans.
I:.
The Preliminary Safety Analysis Pecor:
The Preli-inary Safety Analysis Reper. s'all contain su'#icient ir'on ation to ensure the compatibility c# prceosed e er;ency plans both
- r cnsite areas and the EPZs uitn facility design features, site layout,
I 25 1613 30L -
[7590-01]
and site location with respect to such considerations as access routes, surrounding population distributions, and land use for the Emergency Planning Zones 2(EPZs).
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 energency, of persons assigned to the emergency organizations; B.
Contacts and arrangements made and documented with local, State, and Federal governmental agencies with responsibility for coping with energencies, including identificaticn of the principal agencies.
[ ALTERNATIVE (a)
C.
Protective measures to' be taken in the event of an accident within the site boundary and within each EPZ to protect health and safety; corrective measures to prevent damage to onsite and offsite property; and the excected response, in the event of an emergency, of offsite 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 2
The size of the EFZs for a nuclear.nover plant shall be determined in r2;ation to tne c ercency *esponse r.:eds and capabilities as thev are a-fected py such local conditions as deregraphy torography, land
~
paracter stics, access routes, and local 't:risdictiona' boundaries.
ucrerally. :10 piu e exposure cathway EPZ for licht water nuclear pcuer plants shall censist of an area about 10 riles radius and the irgestion rat"way EPZ an area a.5 cut 50 r-iles in radius.
EPZs are d i scussed ir *:'.*P.EG-03PS.
The si:e c' the EP:!s for non-power reactors shall be determined cn a case-by-case basis.
D @ @ l0 *DT 1613 305, WM o a s
[7590-01]
an evacuation, who authorizes the evacuation, how the public is to be notified and instructed, how the evacuation is to be carried out); 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 decontailination, and for emergency transportation of onsite individuals to offsite treatment facilities; E.
Provisions to be made for emergency treatment at offsite. cil-ities of individuals in,iured 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 ray be needed in the event of a radiological energency;
.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 profects the time and means to be enployed in the notification of State and local governments and the public in the event of an emergency.
A prelirinary analysis of the tine required to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plune exposure pathway epi 'or transient and per anent popu'ations.
1613 506 0""D
"]D V V@
6e
- 1 A kliiL; g
[7590-01]
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 pliinning that have 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 coordination among the supporting groups and between them and the licensee.
[ALTERftATIVE (a)
The plans submitted must include a descriction 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 property within the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs).2]
or
[ALTERt!ATIVE (b)
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 neasures can and will be taken in the ever.t of an energency to protect public health and safety within the Emer-gency Planning Zones (EPZs).23 IV.
Content of E ergency :1ans
}6l3 jQ/
The applicant's emergency plans shall :en ain. but "
c.ecessarily be
-ited c., the 'ol!cwin; elements :
or.an' a-io
'er cepi.; :ith radiation D**]D "]D'T oo m o m.A.V
.a
[7590-01]
emergencies, assessment action, activation of emergency organization.
notification procedures, emergency facilities and ecuipment, training.
maintaining emergency preparedness, and recovery.
The applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time recuired to evacuate various sectors a,nd 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
'neans 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; b.
Plant staff emergency assignments; c.
Authorities, responsibilities and duties of an onsite energency coordinator who shall be in charge of the exchange of infornation uith offsite authorities responsible for coordinating and impler.entir.g offsite emergency ceasures.
3.
A description of the licensee eadcuarters personnel that will be
~
sent to the olant site to provide augmentatien of the ensite energency organi:ation.
D"#"}D 6" D
" 6h
~
} g
.1 kint h c oJu o
613 308
?e
[759C-01]
4 Identification, by position, of persons within the licensee organ-. tion who will be responsible for making offsite dose pro.iections and a description of how these pro.'ections will be made and the results transmitted to State and local authorities, NRC FD!A and other appropriate governmental entities.
5.
Identification, by position and function, of other employees of the ifcensee with special qualifications for coping with emer-gency conditions which may arise.
Other persons with special qualifications, such as consultants, who are not enployees of the ifcensee and v.ho may he called upon for assistance for short-or long-term energencies shall also be identified.
Tne special qualifications of these persons shall be described.
6.
A description of the local offsite se-vices to be provided in support of the licensee emergency o-c:nization.
7.
Identificatien of and expected assistance fron appropriate State, local, and Federal agencies with responsibili'.,es for c: ping with emergencies.
8.
Identification of the State and/or local offi:ials responsible for planning for, ordering, notification of, and controlling appropriate protective actions, including evtcuations when necessary.
B.
ASSESSME"7 A:~~ 0'.'S The eans to be crovided 'or deter-img -Me a: ':.de and continued a:22ssment cf the release o' radicactive 1:eria's sb 11 be cescribed 1613 309 o*gb *]o ]A o
a o
[7590-01 ]
including emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria for detemining 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 cppropriate meteorological information for defemining when protective neasures should be considered within and outside the site boundary to protect health and safety and prevent damage to property.
The energency action levels shall be based on in-plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite and offsite monitoring.
These emergency ac-ion levels shall be discussed and agreed upon by the applicant and State and local governmental autho-
.rities and approved by f;RC.
They shall also be reviewed with the State and local governmental authorities on an annual basis.
C.
ACTIVATI0ft 0F E"ERGEfCY COGAlilZATI0rt 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 comnunication steps taken to alert or activate emergency personnel under each class of emergency shall be de-scribed.
Emergency action levels (based not only on onsite and offsite radiation monitoring information but also on readings from a number of sensors that indicate a potential emergency such as the pressure in cen-cainmer.t and the response of the Emergency Core Cooling Systen) for notifi-catica e' o'fsite a;encies shall be descreed.
The existence, but not the dctails, cf a "essage authentication s:Ps e s"all 5e noted for such agencies.
1613 310 N 3 Id n
[7590- 01 ]
D.
NOTIFICATI0tl PROCEDURES 1.
Administrative and physical means for notifying, and agreements reached with, local, State, and Federal officials and agencies for the early warning of the pblic 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 agencies, for the Emergency Planning Zones 2 (EPZs).
2.
Provisions shall be described for the yearly dissenination to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planeing infon ation such as the possibility of nuclear accidents, the potential hunan health effects of such accidents and their causes, nethods of noti-fication, and the crotective actions planned if an accident occurs, 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 recuired, shall 3
be described for alerting and providing prompt instructions ta the public within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone.
It is the applica_nt's responsibility to ensure that such ceans exist, regardless of who inplements this requirerent.
E.
E"ERCEt:CY FACILITIES A!!D E;UIP"E; T Provisions shall be rade and described # r e ergency facilities and e:u': ent. including-1613 311
- is sxpected that the capability will be trovided to begin alerting
- f the public wit 5in the plure exposure ca:%;ay EP'. itr.dr. 15 ninutes
- tha notification by the licensee c' '::al and Stata officials.
'D *
- lD D
T }X 6
.nnn 2
u
[7590-01]
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 onsite
,i ndividual s; 4.
Facilities and medical supplies 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 contacinated indi-viduals from the site to treatment facilities outside the site bounoary; 7.
Arrangenents for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed activities on the site at treatnent 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 conmunication arrar.gements for e-ergencies, including titles and alternates for those in charge at both ends of the cenrunication ' ink.s and the crinary and backuo means of c:.- unication.
!!here consistent viith function of the govern ental age cy, these arrangerents ill include-1613 512 D*
]D *D 3'l A
- 2..Y
_a o o Ju a
[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, State c.
and/or local emergency operations centers, and field assessnent teams.
Such connunications systems shall be tested annually.
F.
TPAINIMG The program to provide for (1) the training of employees and exer-
~
cising, by periodic drills, of radiation energency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their speci',1c energency re-sponse 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 special-ized 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 roca shift personnel.
c.
Padiological conitoring teams, d.
Fire control teans (fire brigades).
1b13 513 c.
?.ccair and damage control teams.
First aid and rescue teans.
mm o
g-J 6 Ju o M. 1 kinLa 35
[7590-01 ]
g.
Local services personnel, e.o., local Civil Defense, local law enforcement personnel, and local news media persons.
h.
Itedical 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 ecuipment and communication networks, and to ensure that emergency crgani:ation personnel are familiar with their duties.
Such provisions st.all specifically include participa-
, tion by offsite personnel as described above as well as other State and lccal governmental agencies.
The plan shall also describe provisions for a ioint exercise involving the Federal, State. and local response organizations.
The scope of such an exercise should test as nuch of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without involving full public participation.
Definitive perfomance criteria shall be established for all levels of oarticipation to ensure an ob.iective 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 [ALTERilATIVE A three years] or [ ALTER'!ATIVE B five years] thereafter.
3.
for a plant for which an operating license is issued after the effec-ive date of this amend er.0, initially within one year of the iss.:ance of the operating li: ente and once every [2LTED"ATIVE A three y2ars] or [ALTERi:ATIVE 3 " ve years] t ereafter.
1613 514 3.0 g 1
m,,
. g o
x c
[7590-01]
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.
G.
MAltlTAINING B1ERGEttCY PREPAREDttESS Provisions to be employed to ensure that the emergency plan, its implementing procedures and emergency equipment and supplies are maintained up to date 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 shculd be continued.
V.
Implementing Procedures
"'tF** fio less than 180 days prior to scheduled issuance of an Operat-ing License,10 copies each of the applicant's detailed implementing pro-cedures for its emergency plan shall be submitted to 11RC Headquarters and to the appropriate !1RC Regional Office.
Within 60 days after the effective date for ;c4C: 2., ; ;.~t:r 3.L : r.'
', ' ? ', c enol i ance wi th the rev i s ed Accendix E, licensees who are authorized to operate a nuclear power facility shall submit 10 copies each of the licensee's e~ergency plan implementing procedures to NRC Headquarters and to the aporopriate iPC P.egional Office.
As necessary to raintain them up to date therea#ter,10 1613 315 omg Fo'1g -
a
[7590-01 ]
copies each of any changes to these implementing procedures shall be sub-mitted to fiRC Headquarters and to the sane flRC Regional Office within 30 days of such changes.
1613 316 l
v 6 J\\\\
w Jb, S lk m
3s