ML19309C712
| ML19309C712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/26/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309C710 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8004090181 | |
| Download: ML19309C712 (20) | |
Text
r c
C Io OS
- W P0LICY ISSUES 0N EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE CHANGES
cT SCHEDULE PROPOSED REGULATION PUBLISHED IN FED. REGISTER 12/19/79 WORKSHOPS CONDUCTED JAN.1980 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED 2/19/80 STAFF DRAFT OF EFFECTIVE REGULATION APRIL 80 ACRS REVIEW 0F EFFECTIVE REGULATION 5/7/80 COMMISSION REVIEW 0F EFFECTIVE RULE MAY 80 EFFECTIVE RULE PUBLISHED IN FED. REGISTER JUNE 80
27 O
POBLIC C0MMENTS OVER 100 LETTERS RECEIVED STILL COMING IN MANY COMMENTS IN MOST LETTERS MANY COMMON ITEMS ALL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT WORKSHOPS
9 m
9 PETITI0NS RELATIVE T0 THIS RULEMAKING CRITICAL MASS ENERGY PROJECT, (MAY 1979) - REQUESTS EMERGENCY PLANNING BE UPGRADED KMC CORPORATION - DELETE 15 MINUTE NOTIFICATION REQMT FROM RULE AND HAVE HEARING ON THIS REQMT DEVEVAISE & LIEBERMAN - DEFER RULEMAKING UNTIL CRITERIA FOR STATE / LOCAL PLANS ARE RECONSIDERED
e-m MAJ0R P0LICY ISSUES F0R DISCUSSION 1.
COMMENTS FROM FEMA 2.
LEGALITY OF REGULATION 3.
FEMA /NRC RELATIONSHIP 4.
NRC/ FEMA CRITERIA FOR STATE / LOCAL PLANS 5.
15 MINUTE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT 6.
NRC CONCURRENCE 7.
STATE OR LOCAL VET 0 POWER 8.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 9.
FUNDING
- 10. ALTERNATIVES IN PROPOSED RULE CHANGES s
m
T 1.
C0MMENTS FR0M FEMA COMMENT:
SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH RULE DELAY RULEMAKING PROBLEMS:
DUE PROCESS CRITERIA NOT REVIEWED IN CONTEXT OF LICENSING REQMT NOR EXPERIENCE GAINED IN THEIR APPLICATION REQMT FOR CONCURRENCE IN STATE / LOCAL PLANS FOR PLANT OPERATION -
3RD PARTY VETO CLARIFICATION OF WHO SHOULD PAY FEDERAL CAPABILITY TO REVIEW & ASSESS STATE / LOCAL PLANS KEY TERMS DEFIL 0, E.G., " CONCURRENCE", " DEFICIENCIES WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT" AND "ALTERNATIVL CONPENSATORY ACTIONS" NRC/ FEMA RULEMAKING SHOULD PROCEED TOGETHER
-m
T d
2.
LEGALITY 0F REGULATION COMMENT:
SEVERAL LAW FIRMS, LICENSEES & STATES QUESTIONED LEGALITY AND/0R CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RULE BASIS:
3RD PARTY VETO REQMTS ON STATE / LOCALS THRU LICENSES INDIRECT REQMT ON APPLICANT / LICENSES TO FUND STATE / LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
9, HOUSE REPORT ACCOMPANYING HOUSE NRC AUTHORIZATION BILL (H.R. 2608):
.... COMMITTEE BELIEVES IMPOSING SUCH SANCTIONS AGAINST A UTILITY FOR THE FAILURE OF A STATE TO HAVE AN APPROVED PLAN RAISES SERIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS...."
NINE MEMBERS OF HOUSE WR0TE COMMENT LETTER STATING:
"IF THE NRC WERE TO ADOPT ITS PROPOSED RULE, IT WOULD MAKE A MOCKERY OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN THIS AREA AND PUT THE NRC ON A COLLISION COURSE WITH THE HOUSE ON THIS ISSUE. WE HOPE THAT THIS WILL NOT OCCUR."
SENATE NRC AUTHORIZATION BILL (S-562):
WOULD REQUIRE THAT STATE / LOCAL PLANS BE CONCURRED IN BY NRC BEFORE ISSUING OPERATING LICENSE OR PERMITTING CONTINUED OPERATION i
y ISSUE STILL UNDER DEBATE IN CONGRESS ISSUE COULD BE DECIDED BY LEGISLATION IN INTERIM - OGC PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF BASIC UNDERLYING LEGAL ISSUES CONCLUDES THAT NRC PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE PROPER
/0 1
3.
F E M A/N R C RELATIONSHIP l
COMMENTS:
FEMA /NRC RELATIONSHIP & HOW THEY WILL INTERACT WITH STATE / LOCALS NOT CLEAR REDUNDANT REVIEW BY NRC & FEMA FEMA VETO ON LICENSING ALTERNATIVES:
GIVE FEMA EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE ADEQUACY OF 0FFSITE PLANS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY NRC - WOULD NEED LEGISLATION
- PROVIDE GREATER DEFINITION OF RELATIONSHIP IN FINAL RULE AND ASSOCIATED SUPPL. INF0, FOLLOWING MOU FOR FEMA & NRC AUTHORITY & RESPONSIBILITIES
- RECOMMENDED BY STAFF
//
4.
NRC/ FEMA CRITERIA F0R STATE /L0 CAL PLANS COMMENTS:
CRITERIA NOT AVAILABLE (AT TIME PROPOSED RULE ISSUED)
NO OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW CRITERIA FOR STATE / LOCAL PLANS NOT WITHIN NRC EXPERTISE OR JURISDICTION CRITERIA SHOULD BE IN RULE ALTERNATIVES:
JUST REFERENCE NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 REPORT IN REGS INCLUDE LIST OF PLANNING OBJECTIVES FROM NUREG-0654 IN RULE
i
/$
5 15 MINUTE N0TIFICATION REQUIREMENT PROPOSED RULE:
HAS FOOTNOTE IN APP. E THAT 15 MINUTE NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC IS EXPECTED COMMENTS:
REQUIREMENT NOT CLEAR NOT REASONABLE NOT JUSTIFIED NOT LEGAL ALTERNATIVES:
CHANGE RULE TO REQUIRE " PROMPT NOTIFICATION" & LEAVE DETAILS TO NUREG-0654 AS PART OF CRITERIA PLANNING OBJECTIVES IN RULE, REQUIRE THAT:
a.
A LICENSEE SHALL NOTIFY RESPONSIBLE STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WITHIN 15 MINUTES AFTER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY b.
THAT A CAPABILITY EXIST FOR STATE / LOCAL GOV'ERNMENTS TO ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLIC WITHIN ANOTHER 15 MINUTES
l
/)L 6
NRC C0NCURRENCE COMMENTS:
DEFINE " CONCURRENCE" RELATIONSHIP TO PREVIOUS NRC VOLUNTARY-CONCURRENCE SYSTEM NRC CONCURRENCE IN CONTEXT OF FEMA LEAD ROLE OFFSITE ALTERNATIVES:
RETAIN NRC CONCURRENCE CONCEPT AS IN PROPOSED RULE DELETE NRC CONCURRENCE & HAVE FEMA MAKE INDEPENDENT & FINAL FINDING &
DETERMINATION THAT PLANS ARE ADEQUATE DELETE DIRECT REFERENCE TO "NRC CONCURRENCE", INSTEAD PROVIDE FOR NRC FINDING ON OVERALL STATE OF PREPAREDNESS s
9 e
0 8
e
- m..
JY 7
STATE OR L0 CAL VET 0 P0WER COMMENT:
STATE / LOCAL GOVT COULD BLOCK OPER. OF FACILITY BY NOT DEV'G EMER. PLAN PROBLEM NOT HYP0THETICat - SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INTENT TO DO THIS ALTERNATIVES:
RETAIN CURRENT LANGUAGE WHICH ALLOWS FOR:
DEFICIENCIES NOT SIGNIFICANT ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATING ACTIONS CLARIFY THAT "0THER COMPELLING REASONS" CLAUSE WOULD ALLOW ISSUANCE IN EVENT OF LOCAL NON-COOPERATION
- DECLARE NRC INTENT IN SUPPL. INFO TO RULE WILL NOT ISSUE OL IF THIS OCCURS, OR WILL ISSUE IF COMPENSATING MEASURES CAN BE PROVIDED, OR MAY ISSUE & PUBLISH STATEMENT EXPLAINING SITUATION
l h
8.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE COMMENT:
PROPOSED RULE REQMT (180 DAY OR JAN 1, '81) IS NOT REASONABLE r
ALTERNATIVES:
RETAIN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES AS IN THE PROPOSED REGULATION EXTEND ENTIRE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TIME ONLY FOR CERTAIN REQMTS (E.G. ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 15 MINUTE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT) e
,-.,. r ~rv w --
uu i
l l
/5A i
9.
FUNDING COMMENT:
THROUGHOUT WORKSHOPS & IN MANY COMMENT LETTERS A BASIC CONCERN EXPRESSED IS WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS REGULATION ALTERNATIVES:
AS IN PROPOSED RULE, DO NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ADD PARAGRAPH TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ACCOMPANYING RULE SAYING ESSENTIALLY THAT:
QUESTION OF FUNDING BEYOND SCOPE OF THIS RULE HOWEVER RULE MAY-PROVIDE INCENTIVE FOR UTILITY / LICENSEES TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING NECESSARY RESOURCES O
P
/6
.10.
ALTERNATIVES (A&B) IN PROPOSED RULE ON EFFECT OF INADEQUATE STATE / LOCAL PLAN COMMENTS:
STATES / LOCALS & LICENSEES ALMOST ALL FAVOR ALTERNATIVE A REQUIRING COMM. DECISION WHETHER TO SHUTDOWN ALMOST ALL GENERAL PUBLIC FAVOR ALTERNATIVE B REQUIRING AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN UNLESS EXEMPTION GRANTED ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE A AS IN PROPOSED RULE ALTERNATIVE B AS IN PROPOSED RULE
l R?j OTHER ALTERNATIVES IN PR0P0 SED RULE APP. E, SECT II.C.
- RELATES TO PSAR APP. E. SECT III
- RELATES TO FSAR IN BOTH CASES, ISSUE IS:
WHETHER PROTECTIVE MEASURES BY LICENSEE ALTERNATIVE A - INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE B - NOT INCLUDE
" MEASURES TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO ONSITE AND OFFSITE PROPERTY" COMMENTS:
VERY FEW COMMENTS GENERALLY FROM LICENSEES SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE B
/3 FREQUENCY 0F
-EXERCISES COMMENTS:
VERY FEW COMMENTS, GENERALLY SUPPORT 5 YEAR FRE0VENCY NRC/IE HAS NOTED THAT REQUIREMENT FOR EXERCISE EVERY 3 YEARS INVOLVING NRC AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WOULD MEAN EXERCISE EVERY 2 OR 3 WEEKS NOTE:
3 YEAR VS 5 YEAR FREQUENCY WAS INDICATED AS ALTERilATIVE A AND B IN PROPOSED RULE ALTERNATIVES:
REQUIRE ANNUAL JOINT EXERCISE BETWEEN EACH FACILITY AND STATE / LOCALS AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVERY 3 YEARS REQUIRE ANNUAL JOINT EXERCISE BETWEEN EACH FACILITY AND STATE / LOCALS AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVEP.Y 5 YEARS m-e_
4 4
O OX m - 3=
3 2M-m N
m 2
e me m
--4 x2I OO>
m 2 O cn 32 2
muO 2 f"" O
-4 m X 3m -4 2 m
fmm* Z X1 M
-4 1 m O
'> Z O
-4 3=
2 m 4 2
3 m -4 2:=
2 = -4 m
-4 m 22 -4 2
(n m x m
("
C 03 M
m 03 --4 m 3a w
E m
MMm 2
-m dwO@
m
-4 2 mM 2 3m 2mm M O O
OD 3= -4
-4 2-
-4 <m M
M ZO mm
-4 3m O O r""
3m
-4 38
%3
-4 3a >
2 -t m
C we O
3
-4 2 I
m 3m O
-t M 2
3= M
-4 2X t2 3m O
-4
\\N
.