ML19331D306
| ML19331D306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 08/26/1980 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Vollen R VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, NUDOCS 8008280568 | |
| Download: ML19331D306 (5) | |
Text
THIS 00bMENT CONTAINS lT @M.~
~ ~ ~ ~~~ l 7
~'
POOR-QUAUTY PAGES OELD FF (2) a e
dt
' + -
August 26, 1980, Goldberg/Chron (2) 7 DLynch, ll6C, Phil.
Robert J. Vollen, Esq.
~
?..c.
C/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 In the !!atter of Nu.U+ n Indiana Public Service Corgany (Bailly Generating Station, buclear-1)
Docket No. 50-367 (Construction Permit Extansioni Cear Bob:
Per your letter of August 20, 1980, in its "Statenant of Interim Policy
regarding accident considerations published in the Federal Register on
~.~
June 13 1960, the Comission directed the Staff to identify any plants
- ich have construction permits that: ": sight warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions which would prevent or mitigate the.censequences of serious accidents.d 45 F.R. 40101, 40103.
This directive was noted in the Casaission's July 29, 1980 advance notice of rulemaking (45 f.R. 50350) referenced in ycur lettar.
The Stafi aas not yet responded tr this directive nor identified those M,R plants which wervant the early cor sideration specified therein., I will send you a copy of the Staff response on this mattar when released.
~
Sincerely.
/s/
Sta h C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff
Enclosure:
As stated 9
O S
95 annananC&8 6
cch.CELb,a]
suaww >'.SCGo.ldberg.:.jd.l.. M...
or o.ut >!.8/25/80
,[ S/tp /80
- .x,:. um.,:1.A.
eu.s.cm. ~ ~ ~1.m~ri~oc.~cco m..* m
Federal Register / Vzl. 45. N:.116 / Frid:y, Jun213,1980 / Rul:s and R;gul:thns 40101
- 8. Section 113.93 is amended by analysis of results uns of the sequences that can result in inadequate revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) to challenge materialTtte vaccinates and cooling of reactor fuel and to melting of controls shall be observed for 3 days the reactor core. In this regard, attention read:
postchallenge and all deaths recorded.
shall be given both to the probability of occurrence of such releases and to the I
l (21 U.S.C.151 and 154: 37 m :a477. :ssee; se environmental consG rs of sech R 19141) releases.This statement of interim ICI* *
- Done at Washington. D.C., this eth day of policy is taken in coordination with l
(1) Each of at least 8 but not more lune 1980.
other ongoing safety-related activities than 10 guinea pigs, each weighing 300 It. P. Jones.
that are directly related to accident mppryms vecerinary considerations in the areas of plant to 500 grams shall be mjected subcutaneously with a gumea pig dose.
Se m ces.
design. operational safety, siting policy.
A second guinea pig dose shall be r ra.d e-ta-am a n em) and emergency planning. The mjected 21 to 23 days after the first Commission intends to continue the a w mocoot m dose. Each guinea pig dose shall be one-rulemaking on this matter when new fifth of the dose reccmmended on the siting requirements and other safety label for a calf.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY related requirements incorporating (2) Clostridium no vs. hallenge COMMISSION accident considerations are in place.
c matenal, available upon request from Veterinary Services, shall be used for 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 OATas: This statement of interim policy challenge 14 to 15 days following the is effective June 13.1980 Commsnt last injection of the product. Each of Nuclear Power Plant Accident period expires September 11.1980.
eight vaccinates and each of five Considerations Under the National additional nonveccmated guinea pigs for Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ApoResses:he Commission intends the intenm policy guidance contained controls shall be injecM Aoswcy:U.S Nuclear Regulatory herem to be immediately effective.
intramuscularly with approximately 100 Commission However, allinterested persons who e
LD of challenge material.This dose Action: Statement of Interim Policy.
desire to submit wntten comments or
)
shall be determined by statistical suggestions for consideration in g
analysis of results of titrations of the
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Iwsuatory connection wit i this statement should challenge material.The vaccinates and Commission (NRC) is revismg its policy r
controls shall be observed for 3 days for considenng the more severe kinds of send them to the 7cre,tary of the Commission. U.S. Nuc. ear Regulatory postchallenge and all deaths recorded.
very low probability accidents that are Commission. Wa shington. D.C. 20555, physically possible in environmental
- 9. Section 113.94 is amended by impact assessments required by the Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
revismg the introductory portion of National Environmental Policy Act paragraph (c) and paragraphs (c)(1) and (NEPA) Such accidents are commonly FoR ruRTHER INFORM ATION CONT ACTt l
(c)(2) to read:
referred to as Class 9 accidents.
R. Wayne Houston. Chief. Accident f 11 wi g a accident classification Evaluation Branch Office of Nuclear
{ 113.94 ClostrNilum Sordellii Bactorin.
scheme proposed by the Atomic Energy Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear toxo 6d' Commission (predecessor to NRC)in Regulatory Commission. Washington.
1971 for purposes of implementing D.C. 20555. Telephone: (301) 492-7323.
(c) Potency test. Bulk or final NEPA.'The March 28.1979 accident at smMENTARY WMAMN:
container samples of completed product Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear from each senal shall be tested for plant has emphasized the need for Accident Considerations in Past NEPA I
potency by one of the following changes in NRC policies regarding the Reviews
[
methods: A host animal test written mto considerations to be given to serious De proposed Annex to Appendix D the filed Outline of Production. or the accidents from an environmental as well g
of to C R Part 50 (hereafter the two-stage test provided in this as a safety point of view.
" Annex") was published for comment paragraph.
This statement ofinterim policy L
(1) Each of at least 8 but not more annources the withdrawal of the on December 1.1971 by the (former)
Atomic Energy Commission. It proposed than 10 guinea pigs, each weighmg 300 propcsed Annex to Appendix D of10 l
to 500 grams shall be injected CFR Part 50 and the suspension of the to specify a set of standardized accident subcutaneous!y with a guinea pig dose.
rulemaking proceeding that began with assumptions to be used in Environmental Reports submitted by
(,
A second guinea pig dose shall be the publication of that proposed Annex applicants for construction permits or
- g injected 21 to 23 days after the first on December 1.1971. It is the operating licenses for nuclear power j g dose. Each guines pig dose shall be one-Commission's position that its l
fifth of the dose recommended on the Environmental Impact Statements shall reactors. It also included a system for label for a calf-include considerations of the site.
classifying accidents according to a (2) Clostndium sordellii challenge specific environmentalimpacts graded scale of severity and probability d
material. available upon reque,st from attributable to accident sequences that of occurrence. Nine classes of accidents Vetennary Services. shall be used for lead to releases of radiation and/or were defined, ranging from trivial to 0
challenge 14 to 15 days followmg the radioactive materials. including very serious. It directed that "for each second injection of the product. Each of class, except classes 1 and 9. the environmental consequences shall be eight vaccinates and each of five
' Proposed as an Annes to 10 CHt Part so.
l additional nonvaccinated guinea pigs for Appenda D. 36 FR r.:831. De Commission e NEPA.
evaluated as indlCated." Class 1 events controls shall be miected ueptemenuns resuwnons were sveiequemry fluly were not to be considered because of intramuscularly with approximately 100 y ago a
,gn their trivial consequences. whereas in 2a cas es e'
n d
LD of challenge matenal.This dose ran,,,. su!! under considerauen as nt regard to Class 9 events. the Annex stated as follows:
shall be determined by statistical
- a:. s.
r 40102
. Federal Regeter. / W1. 45, Nr.116 / Friday, Jun) 13, 1980 / Ris cnd Regultti ns De occurrences.n Class 9 involve within a 50-mile radius of the plant, and body on which the plant floats. Here the sequences of postulated successive failures some differences between boiling water staff emphasized its focus on risk to the i
reactors (BWR) and pressurized water environment but did not find that the I[sYgnbe oUp tectIe's s{
reactors (PWR).Beyond these few erobability of a core melt event engineered infety features. neir
'Pecifacs, the discussions have C,. g in the fi*st place was natersted th enidance of the Annex essantially any different than for land-consequences could be severe. However the t
probability of their occurrence is so small and ha;e relied vpon the Am ex's based plant. In its Mernorandum and that their environmental nsk is extnmely low. Defense in depth (multiple physical cordusion that tl.e probability of Ordct in the Matter of Offshore Power i
barners), quahty assurance for design.
eccurrence of a Class 9 even' is too lori Systems.* the Commission concurred in
(
manufacture and operation, conunned to warrant cons,deration, a c onclusion the staffs judgment. Thus, the Reactor surveillance and testmg. and ionserveuve based upon generally stated safety Safety Study and NRC experience with these cases has served to refocus considerations.
'hD With the publication of the Reactor attention on the need to reemphasize main a n the re t
Safety Study (WASH-1400), in draft that environmental risk entails both cfas are a form in August 1974 and final form in probabilities and consequences, a point re a e ntly mote in probabihty that the envirremental nok ia October 1975, the accident discussions that was made in the publication of the f
extremely low. For these recons,it is rm in EnvironmentalImpact Statements Annex. but was not given adequate necessary to discuss such events in opphcants' Environmental Reports.
began to refer to this first detailed study emphasis.
of the risks associated with nudear in July 1977 the NRC commissioned a Risk Assessment Review Group "to A footnote to the Annex stated:
power plant accidents, particularly Although this annex refers to applicant's events which can lead to the melting of darify the achievements and limitations Environmental Reports. the current the fuelinside a reactor.8 The references of the Reactor Safety Study." One of the condusions of this study, published in pEble excep sIe con't to this study were in keeping with the otherwise requin, to AEC draft and fica] '
intent and spirit of NEPA "to diodose" S*ptember 1978, as NUREG/CR 0400.
t mey
" Risk Assessment Review Group Report,
relevant information, but it is obvious to the U.S. Nudear Regulatory Detaded statementa.
that WASH-1400 did not form the basis Commission." was that "The Review During the public comment period that for the condusion expressed in the followed publicat2on of the Annex a Annex in 1971 that the probability of Group was unable to determine whether the absolute probabilities of accident number of criticisms of the Annex were occurrence rf Class 9 events was too sequences in WASH-1400 are high or r cerved. Pnncipal a 2ong these were low to warrant their (site.specine) low, but believes that the error bounds
- 8 consideration under NEPA.
on thosustimates an in gueral, (1) The phil'osophy of prescribing
& Chsh's staff has.however' greatly understated." This and other assumptions does not lead to objective Identified in certain cases unique b
ently e d 101 extens ve and det d
Environmental Impact Statements, along a c e ts i en ut the mo 8n aI consideration of Class 9 events. One of we a
nt o
ty I s79 a Breeder Re or P C RP), a b uid t sre i
to s o at metal cooled fast breeder reactor very Review Group Report, pblished o.n sufficiently low 0 probability that their different from the more conventional yanu g 3979 g n,s consequences in terms of environmental light water reactor plants for which the g
risks need not be discussed, safety experience base is much broader. Review Group. both as to the Reactor (4) No guidance was given as to how In the Final Environmental Statement Safety Study's achievements and as to accident and normal releases of for the CRBRP the staff mduded a radioactive effluents during plant discussion of the considerationit had its limitations' Environmental A few Draft r
operation should be factored into the given to Class 9 events.
Statements have been published cost-benefit analysis.
in the early site review for the subsequent to the Three Mile Island (5) The accident assumptions are not Perrymar site, the staff performed an accident. These were for conventional generally applicable to gas cooled or Informal assessment of the relative land-based light water reactor plants
, g liquid metal cooled reactors.
differences m Class 9 accident and continued to reflect the past J,
(6) Safety and environmental risks are l
not essentially different consideratJons.
consequences among the alternative practice with respect to accidents at l
Neither the Atomic Energy sites. (SECY-78-137) such plants,but noted tha* the j
in the case of the application by experience gained from the Three Mile I
Commission nor the NRC took any l
further action on this rulemaking except Offshore Power Systems to manufactum Island accident was not factored into f
[*
floating nuclear power plants. the staff the discussion.
in 1974 when 10 CFR Part 51 was judged that the environmental risks of Our experience with past NEPA promulgated. Over the intervening years some Class 9 events warranted special reviews of accidents and the TMI t-the accident considerations discussed in
)
Environmental !mpact Statements for consideration.The special accident clearly leads us to believe that proposed nuclear power plants reflected circumstances were the potentia!Iy a change is needed.
the guidance of the Annex with few senous consequences associated with Accordingly, the proposed Annex to exceptions. Typically, the discussions of water (liquid) pathways leading to Appendix D of10 CFR Part 50 published radiological exposures if a molten on December 1.1971. is hereby accident consequences through Class a reactor core were to fallinto the water withdrawn and shall not hereafter be (design basis accidents) for each case used by applicants nor by the staff.The have reflected specific site 81t is of memst that the Reactor $atefy Study reasone for the withdrawal are as Charactenstics associated with meteorology (the dispersion of releases 71['
,7,"","$'g'l"j',',' f,'jd'"'
follows:
y of radioactive material into the equn.:eni to. core meit.ccident.
- Docket fio. STN so-47, September 14.19*9 atmosphere), the actual population s PilIPLo139. February 19"r.
+
4
i Federal Register / Vcl. 45. Nr.116 / Frid:y Jun? 13. 1980 / Rul:s and R:gulati:ns 40103
- 1. The Annex proscribes The environmental consequences of issued Statements, nor, absent a C /
consideration of the kinds of accidents releases whose probability of occurence showing of similar special (Class 9) that, according to the Reactor has been estimated shall also be circumstances, as a basis for opening.
Safety Study, dominate the accident discussed in probabilistic terms. Such reopening. or expanding any previous or nsk.
consequences shall be charactenzed in ongoing proceeding.'
- 2. The definition of Class 9 accidents terms of potential radiological However,it is also the intent of the in the Annex is not sufficiently precise exposures to individuals, to population Commission that the staff take steps to to warrant its fur.her use in Commission groups, and, where applicable, to biota.
identify additional cases that might 0
pohey rules, and regulations. nor as a Health and safety risks that may be warrant early consideration of either decision enterion in agency practice.
associated with exposures to people additional features or other actions 2
- 3. The Annex's prescription of shall be discussed in a manner that which would prevent or mitigate the assumptions to be used in the analysis fairly reflects the current state of consequences of serious accidents.
of the environmental consequences of knowledge regardmg such nsks.
Cases for such consideration are those accidents does not contnbute to Socioet.onomic impacts that might be for which a Final Environmental st objective consideration.
associated with emergency measures Statement has already been issued at 0
- 4. The Annex does not give adequate dunng or following an accident should the Construction Permit stage but for consideration to the detailed treatment also be discussed. The environmental which the Operating License review of measures taken to prevent and to nsk of accidents should also be stage has not yet been reached. In C
mitigate the consequences of accidents compared to and contrasted with carrying out this directive, the staff in the safety review of each application.
radiological nsks associated with should consider relevant site features, as The classification of accidents normal and anticipated operational including population density, associated 2
proposed in that Annex shall no longer releases.
with accident risk in comparison to such be used. In its place the followmg In promulgating this interim guidance, features at presently operating plants.
intenm guidance is given for the the Commission is aware that there are Staff should also consider the likelihood
']'"'
8cedd and willlikely remain for some time to that substantive changes in plant design ns come many uncertainties in the features which may compensate further Accident Considerations in Future application of risk assessment methods, for adverse site features may be more ser NEPA Reviews and it expects that its Environmental easily incorpcrated in plants when It is the posi' ion of the Commission Impact Statements will identify major construction has not yet progressed very s
that its Environmental Impact uncertainties in its probabilistic far.
estimates. On the other hand the Environmental Reports submitted by Statements, pursuant to Section 10 (c)(i) of the National Environmental Policy Commission believes that the state of applicants for construction permits and 4
Act of 1969. shall include a reasoned the art is sufficiently advanced that a for operating licenses on or after July 1.
consideration of the environmental risks beginning should now be made in the 1980 should melude a discussion of the
'ng (impacts) attnbutable to accidents at the use of these methodologies in the environmental risks associated with particular facility or facilities within the regulatory process and that such use accidents that follows the guidance 8
r scope of each such statement. In the will represent a contructive and rational given herein.
analysis and discussion of such risks.
forward step in the discharge ofits Related Policy Matters Under 1
approximately equal attention shall be reponsibilities.
hideth given to the probability of occurrence of It is the mtent of the Commission in releases and to the probability of issuing this Statement ofInterim Policy in addition to its responsibilities occurrence of the environmental that the staff willinitiate tn utments of under NEPA. the NRC also bears 3
consequences of those releases.
accident considerations. in accordance responsibility under the Atomic Energy Releases refer to radiation and/or with the foregoing guidance, in its Act for the protection of the public radioactive matenals entenng ongoing NEPA reviews, i.e., for any health and safety from the hazards environmental exposure pathways.
proceeding at t. licensing stage where a associated with the use of nuclear including air, water, and ground water.
Final Enytronmental Impact Statement energy. Pursuant to this responsibility I
Events or accident sequences that has not yet been issued. These new the Commission notes that there are lead to releases shall mclude but not be tr atments, which will take into account currently a nurrber of ongoing activities lirrited to those that can reasonably be significant site. and plant specific being considered by the Commission expected to occur. In-plant accident features will result in more detailed and its staff which intimately relate to i
sequences that can lead to a spectrum of discussions of accident risks than in the " Class 9 accident" question and e
releases shall be discussed and shall previous environmental statements, which are either the subject of current include sequences that can result in particularly for tnose related to rulemaking or are candidate subjects for madequate cooling of reactor fuel and to conventionallight water plants at land.
rulemaking.
melting of the reactor core. The extent to based sites. it is expected that these On December 19.1979 the which events arismg from causes revised treatments willlead to Commission issued for public comment
- ct extemal to the plant which are conclusions regardmg the environmental a proposed rule which would l
considered possible contributors to the nsks of accidents similar to those that significantly revise its requirements in j
nsi associated with the particular plant wouid be reached by a continuation of 10 CFR Part 50 for emergency plannmg 3
ud shall also be discussed. Detailed current practices. particularly for cases for nuclear power plants. One of the l
l quantitative considerations that form involving special circumstances where considerations in this rulemaking was I
the basis of probabilistic estimates of Class 9 nsks have been considered by l he releases need not be mcorporated in the the staff, as desenbed above. Thus. this
'comnnow, ci!m.ky end ar dford di
.re.
"* *"nclu *n d o' Pr=de8 'enunca l
Environmental Impact Statements but change in policy is not to be construed
$',d'd,*,'j,'7,,Y,*",,,'$"l']j',",'f'"' "*
shall be referenced therem. Such as any lack of confidence in conclusions references shallinclude as applicable.
regardmg the environmental risks of
.rmam, po., tion on c!... e accidents.
reports on safety evaluations.
accidents expressed in any previously
's4 nt rsier.
l e
i 40104 Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol. 45. N:.118 / Friday Jun213,1980 / Rul:s end R2guhtions the potential consequences of Class 9 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.on.
resellers and reseller-retailers of I *-
accidents in a generic sense.'
Samuel J. Chilk.
g&toline. Generally, the new rules In August 1979. pursuant to the Secarary ofthe Cocurussion.
Permit resellers and reseller retailers to Commisuon's request. a Sitmg Policy in o., so.usu ruw e-is.ea sas w compute mexic am lawful selling prices Task Force made recommendations with s u me caos rie w based on the acquisition cost of the type respect to possible changes in NRC or grade of gasoline. plus a fixed cents I
reactor siting policy and criteria.*
Per gallon markup depending on the currently set forth in 10 CFR Part 100. As DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY type of sale, plus tax costs.'The new rules are similar to the retailer price stated therein. its recommendations were made to accomplish (among Economic Regulatory Administration rules adopted in Jul 1979.
others) the following goal'.
Under the new es, acquisition cost To take mto considersuon in sitmg the nsk 10 CFR Pertt 210,232 is defined as the last purchase price for associated with accidents beyond the design
[ Docket No. ERA-b79-32E1 sellers with gasoline sales of 5 million basis (Class 9) by estabbslung population gallons or less in calendar year 1979. For i
density and distnbuuon critena.
Rosellers' and Reseller Retailers' Price sellers with sales of more than 5 million I
This matter is currentiY before the Rules for Gasoline gallons of gasoline in calendar year Commission.
1979, acquisition cost is defined as the AGENcr. Economic Regula tory cos' of product in inventory computed This and other recommendations that Admiristration. Department of Energy.
pursuant to the seller's histoncal have been made as a result of the AcTrom: Final rule.
investigations into the Three hfile Island accounting practices consistently applied.'
I accident are currently being brought suuuARY:The Department of Energy Generally, the retailer pnce rules l
together by the Commission's staff in (DOE) hereby adopts three amendments adopted in July 1979 permit retailers to the form of proposed Action Plans '
to its reseller and reseller-retatler price alter their normal business practices Among other matters, these incorporate rules. First, small resellers and reseller-with respect to sales of gasoline.The recommendations for rulemaking related retailers (sales in calendar year 1979 of new reseller. retailer rules do not contain I
to degraded core cooling and core melt 5 million gallons of gasoline or less) are a similar provision. However, in most accidents. The Commission expects to permitted the option of computing other respects the July 1979 price rules
}
issue decisions on these Action Plans in
" acquisition cost" using the firm's for independent retailers and the new the near future. It is the Commission's historical accounting practices reseller retailer price rules are similar.
L policy and intent to devote NRC's major consistently applied. Second, the normal Finally, the restnction on the amount resources to matters which the business prececes rule is amended to ofincreased commissions that may be Commission believes will make existing treat reseller-ret. >rs consistently with passed through in price increases by and future nuclear power plants safer, independent retaintrs with respect to refiners was removed. In doms so, and to prevent a recurrence of the kind retail gasoline sales. Third, the however, the provision that permitted i
of accident that occurred at Three Mile exception to the refiner equal refiners an exception to the equal Island. In the interim. however. and application rule regarding retail sales by application rule to reflect increased pendirg completion of rulemaking consignee. agents is reinstated.
commissions in the retail selling price activities in the areas of emergency DATE: Effective May 1.1980.
charged by commission agents was planning. sitmg criteria, and design and deleted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Gillette (Hearing Procedures).
D. Amendments o
era ions of erious et potential, the Commission finds it Economic Regulatory Administration.
Comments received by DOE since the essential to improve its procedure for Room 2214. 2000 M Street. NW..
Issuance of the rule indicate that a few Washm.gton. D.C. 20461 (202) r43-3757 small sellers would prefer to use the describmg and disclosing to the p lic the basis for arriving at conclusions William L Webb (Office of Public cost of product in inventory rather than regarding the environmental nsks due to infonnationi. Emnmme Regulatory the last purchase price to determine Administra-Room 1% 2000 M acquisition cost. Generally these sellers accidents at nuclear power plants. On b '#"
" WasWon RC. 2M61 purchase product from more than one completion of the rulemaking activities in these areas, and based also upon the 8 " "'
Chuc e
egulations and l
expenence gained with this statement of intenm policy and guidance. the Emergency Planning). Economic iw,th rupect to estabbshms the man-num i
Commission intends to pursue possible Regulatory Admuustration. Room lawful wuma pnce for saschot wtuch is the subiect changes or additions to 10 CFR Part 51 7204. 2000 M Street. NW., Washington, of a Nouce of Proposed Rulemakms (4s FR s4a46.
to Codify its position on the role of D.C. 20461 (202) 653-3202 M*Y 2 2883 "*'""h*tandms statemenu to me accident risks under NEPA.
am Fud or Mam Mayo W contrarv in that rulemakmg the new pr*ce rules for mwucs. muun.retauers. and retaders pernut (Office of General Counsel),
wuers that blend sanoholio estabhsh a mammum Dated at Washmgton D.C., this 9th day of Department of Energy. Room 6A-127 lawful wilms pnce for gasohol m a manner that I* N 1000 Independence Avenue. SW tnats the sisalme and alcohol components of g'
%.a shington. D.C. 20585 (202) 252-6738 sesohol as separate products under the pnce rules.
'Cf NUREG-0396. "P!annms Bas;s ar the 8
3,co,em,iy, a, cqui,inon cost of each m a Developrnent of State and Local Goventment or 252-6754 component of the blender e mammum lawful seums
,a Radioloalcal Emergency Response Plans m Suppen SUPPLEMENT ARY INFORMATIOpc Pnce for Lasohol.
of LsSt W sier Nuclear Power Plants? November
'If a f rm has consistently and histoncally used 1s*8
1. Background
more than one accountma precoce for determmes NUREC 08cs. " Report of the Sitms Pohey Tasa U. Arnendments the cost of product m inventory le :-. one for DOE Force? August 19*9 IU. Procedural Requirements pnce rules and one for mcome tan purposesl. the
' Draft NUREG-onno. " Action Plans for firm may choose either of these accountms Implement ng Recommendations of the President s I. Background practices to detennme the cost of product in Commission and Other Studies of the TMI-2 inventory under the new fixed margm reseller and 4
Accident? December 10. W9 On April 28,1980 (45 FR 29546. May 2.
r,wuer-retader rule m firm. of courn. must 1980) DOE issued new pnce rules for cons:siently apply that practice under the new rJe.
t
-