ML19351D910
| ML19351D910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/09/1977 |
| From: | Ryan R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351D906 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR37473, RULE-PR-50 SECY-78-044, SECY-78-44, NUDOCS 8011200369 | |
| Download: ML19351D910 (3) | |
Text
'
o
__ s
/
UNITED STATES y'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'6,.....,o IEC 0 91977 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development FROM:
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT T0 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX E " EMERGENCY PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" Thank you for the opportunity to review this Comission Action paper.
We have the following comments:
The second sentence of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E will have to be modified if the Comission adopts the concepc of generic Protective Action Zones (PAZs) being recomended S.y the NRC/ EPA Task Force on Emergency Planning. The Task Force has comrieted a draft report (NUREG 0396) on this matter which has been fo warded to all major program offices in NRC, and a staff briefing concerning this report is scheduled for December 15, 1977.
We intend to ask State and local government organizations to review and coment on.this draft before forwarding it to the Comission for action, probably in March 1978.
We request that the forthcoming NRC/ EPA Task Force report be again highlighted for the Comission (as it was in SECY-77-461), and that this memorandum be enclosed in the Commission Action paper.
We concur in the general concepts you have outlined and in the rule change i tself.
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs g()11'M ENCLOSURE 3
l
$a ato UNITED STATES l
o 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
{
WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555 A..../
EC 0 91977 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development FROM:
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ISStlANCE OF EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX E " EMERGENCY PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" Thank you for the opportunity to review this Comission Action paper.
We have the following coments:
The second sentence of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 50 Appendix E will have to be' modified if the Comission adopts the concept of generic Protective Action Zones (PAZs) being recommended by the NRC/ EPA Task Force on Emergency Planning.
The Task Force has completed a draft report (NUREG 0396) on this matter which has been forwarded to all major program offices in NRC, and a staff briefing concerning this report is scheduled for December 15, 1977.
We intend to ask State and local government organizations to review and coment on.this draft before forwarding it to the Comission for action, probably in March 1978.
We request that the forthcoming NRC/ EPA Task Force report be again highlighted for the Comission (as it was in SECY-77-461), and that this memorandum be enclosed in the Comission Action paper.
We concur in the general concepts you have outlined and in the rule change itself.
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs ENCLOSURE 3
l 0FFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT'S EVALUATION OF STATE PROGRAMS COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF EFFECTIVE AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E State Program's Memorandum of December 9,1977, forwarded comments on the proposed issuance of an effective amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
State Programs noted that if the Commission adopts the concept of generic Protective Action Zones (PAZ) being recommended by the EPA /NRC Task Force on Emergency Planning, the second sentence of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will have to be modified.
SD has considered the SP comment and agrees that such changes would be necessary.
In addition, the existing regulations in Part 50 and Part 100 related to emergency plans would require modification at that time and a staff evaluation of the concept of generic PAZ would be necessary.
The proposed rule change calls for an evaluation of specific site characteristics, which is consistent wi:h our existing regulations.
For example,10 CFR Part 100, Para.100.3 b., states that:
"Whether a specific number of people can, for example, be evacuated from a specific area, or instructed to take shelter, on a timely basis will depend on many factors such as location, number and size of highways, scope and extent of advance planning, and actual distribution of residents within the area."
g
- Likewise, in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Part II, the applicant is to "... assure the compatibility of proposed emergency plans with facility des 10n features, site layout, and site location with re:pect to such considerations as access routes, surrounding population distributions, and land use."
The EPA /NRC Task Force draft report recommends that protective measures should be planned for within generic zones, which are specified by fixed radial distances from any reactor site for all LWF.'s.
Current NRC regulations require that the area for which emergency planning is necessary shall be determined on the basis of site specific and plant specific characteristics.
We agree with the SP memorandum in that the second sentence of the proposed rule change does require an analysis of site specific characteristics.
In so doing, however, the rule change is not only consistent with the recommendations of the Commission (relative to providing the basis for our evaluation) as given to the staff at Policy Session 77-48 (October 25,1977) but is also consistent with the above mentioned regulations, while the EPA /NRC Task Force recommendations would be inconsistent with these regulations and practices.
Finally, the Task Force reconinendation has not received staff or management review frcm within EPA or NRC and is therefore subject to many changes. Therefore, we reconinend approval of the troposed rule change.
- -