ML19351D916
| ML19351D916 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/30/1978 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351D918 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR37473, RULE-PR-50 SECY-78-044A, SECY-78-44A, NUDOCS 8011200383 | |
| Download: ML19351D916 (17) | |
Text
0C UNITED STATES LEAR RECulATORY COMMIS310N SECY-78-44A May 30, 1978 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM For:
lhe Commissioners From:
Robert B. Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development h Executive Director for Operations Thru:
i
Subject:
ISSUANCE OF PROPOSED AMENDM NT TO 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E, " EMERGENCY PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES" *
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a proposed amendment g
to Appendix E, 10 CFR Part 50, that will address gp emergency planning outside the Low Population Zone yf (LPZ).
Category:
This paper involves a minor rule change which has been previously reviewed by the Commission.
Discussion:
At Policy Session 77-48 (October 25,1977), the Commis-sion discussed SECY-77-461 regarding emergency planning policy.
The Commission approved the proposed rule change (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E) and requested revisions in the " Statement of Considerations" to reflect the separation of emergency planning from the considerations of overall site suitability in a memo-randum dated October 28, 1977.
A memorandum from the Secretary of the Commission, dated November 3, 1977, provided additional guidance to the staff in preparing the proposed rule change and accompanying statement of considerations.
The rule change has been modified, in accordance with an NMSS request, to assure its applica-bility to only nuclear power reactors.
Minor word changes for clarity have also been made.
Recommendation:
The Commission:
1.
Approve the proposed amendment to Appendix E, 10 CFR Part 50, and the supplementary information (statement of considerations), which will be published in the Federal Register for comment.
(See Enclosure 1) i
Contact:
- Supersedes SECY-78-44 M. Jamgochian 443-5317
- \\
v
&D112oyf
The Commissioners 2
2.
Approve the draft letter to be sent to the Subcom-mittee on Energy and the Environment of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce both of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Subcom-mittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the U.S. Senate.
(See Enclosure 2)
Coordination:
SECY-78-44 was forwarded to the Commission on January 25, 1978.
On February 2, 1978, OPE forwarded to the Commission their recommended approval of the 3ECY-78-44 paper, subject to certain clarifying changes.
On February 14, 1978, OGC forwarded to the Commission a memorandum (Enclosure 6) outlining several significant problems with the staff's approach in SECY-78-44.
On March 2, 1978, ELD forwarded to the Commission a memorandum (Enclosure 7) which evaluated each of the OGC comments.
As a result of informal meetings with NRR, OPE, ELD, 0GC, and SD this paper contains the agreed upon resolutions of the comments and problems identified by OPE, OGC and ELD.
The changes that were made as a result of the ELD and OGC memos (Enclosures 6 and 7) to the original paper (SECY-78-44) are legal in nature.
These changes consisted of changing the rule to a proposed rule change published for comment rather than as an effec-tive rule, also making specific use of the EPA Protec-tive Action Guides b adding them to the Supplementary Information and clarifying editorial changes.
SD concluded that these changes would have no impact on the previously received concurrences from NMSS (Enclo-sure 5), which ias based on the fact that the rule change was applicable only to Nuclear Power Reactors, and from SP (Enclosure 3) which was concerned primarily with a potential conflict.
The Office of State Programs concurs with the proposed rule change but has identi-fied, in Enclosure 3, a potential conflict with the EPA /NRC emergency planning task force recommendations.
Standards Development has attached, as Enclosure 4, its evaluation of SP's memorandum.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation concurs with the recommen-dations of this paper.
The Office of t..e Executive legal Director has no legal objections to the proposed rule change to Appendix E but believes that litigation in individual cases could be lessened by adding a sub-stantive standard to the proposed rule that would define l
l l
i The Commissioners 3
the circumstances when protective actions may be required beyond the LPZ.
Such a substantive standard would also provide some helpful guidance to industry and the public regarding the NRC emergency planning policy.
The language that ELD believes should be added to the proposed rule is set forth in Enclosure 8.
Standards Development has attached as Enclosure 9 its evaluation of ELD's proposed additional rulemaking words.
/0 4.t 8 % y Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosures:
See page 4 Commissioner comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by close of business Monday. June 12. 197a.
Cc'=nission staf f office comments, if any, should be submitted t'o the Commissioners NLT June 6. 1978
, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when coniments may be expected.
Tt is paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of June 19, 1978.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
1 DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec. Dir. for Opers.
ACRS AS& lap AS& LAB Secretariat i
l A
j l'
l Th9 Commissioners 4
l
Enclosures:
- Y 1.
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rule Making 2.
Draft Congressional Letter 3.
Comments from Office cf State Programs 4.
Standards Development Evaluation of SP comments 5.
Concurrence from Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards S.
0GC Memo dated February 14, 1978 7.
ELD Memo dated March 2, 1978 8.
ELD Note on additional language in rule 9.
Standards Development ~ Evaluation of ELD comment i
-,-e m-,,-
.r
cd (Odr ' SccCfM 5-,.
n..-...,y
.T if,. 9
- l(:-
- 5hn?'
-)
Y
~
4 i
7
+.
t e
+
- 7.,.
J 3
'{
v t
e s.;
.a :
4 3
8
{-
4 a
y..
4 ENCLOSURE 1' 1
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rule Making m
4
- N e
i J
h meMenETR a
t o
1 q.
4 d
+
E..
- 3 5
s e
5 N
J i
~ ~ '
- s
,. +
5 4
+
s, '
e e
S w
I a
9'7 a
f c
9 6
't'
', l 'V a*?^
' i,.
n r
r
. h[
, } ' '
e-
. f.-
- e 1
i'}-k[-
(
.k(.
4
',I,
- W'
- t..
' J '. f,.'
,?
s o
.r
,. ~
4 a h
L, u' m,, _u,.._;.-v.-;...-.a, %.1.~._.__.-.__---..:
._.-um._..~._._.-.
~
Title 10 - Energy CHAPTER I - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PART 50 - LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES APPENDIX E - EMERGENCY PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITI AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION:
Proposed Rule
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulation on Emergency Plans for Production and Utilization Facilities to address emergency planning considerations that may extend to areas outside the Low Population Zone (LPZ).
EFFECTIVE DATE:
COMMENT PERIOD EXPIRES:
(Date 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.)
ADDRESSES:
Written comments or suggestions concerning the proposed amendment should be submitted to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
Atten-tion:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public' Document Room, i
1717 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C.
1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555 (phone:
301-443-5317)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A major objective of the Commission is to assure that emergency plans exist which provide reasonable assur-ance that appropriate measures can and will be taken in the event of an accidental release of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant.
The intent of the Commission is to assure that the decision-making process for licensing nuclear power plants will include an analysis by the applicant and a review by the Commission of each nuclear power plant license or permit application to plan for taking suitable protective actions on a timely basis under accident condi-tions within and outside the proposed site.
Suitable protective actions would include measures which could mitigate radiation expo-sure to the public from the facility or from radioactive material released to the environs.
Immediate emergency protective measures could include evacuation of the public from the area or the public taking protective shelter until the danger had passed.
The principal aspects of the NRC staff review for emergency planning includes the protection of persons within the exclusion area, the onsite emergency response organizations, the protection of 2
I L
i l
l l
the public beyond the exclusion area and the connection between the 1
facilities plan and that of the offsite emergency response organi-zation consisting of local, State and Federal agencies.
These reviews are part of the safety review of each application.
These matters may also be considered in identifying any potential emer-gency planning advantages or disadvantages of particular sites as part of the NEPA cost / benefit analysis of alternate sites.
There are two elements of the NRC staff review required by the Commission's regulations as stated in 10 CFR Part 100, " Reactor Site Criteria," and 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utiliza-tion Facilities." The first review element is to determine compliance with the siting criteria of 10 CFR Part 100.
Reactor site criteria are established in Part 100 which, in conjunction with postulated accident calculations performed by the applicant for the proposed facility design, establish boundaries for an exclusion area and a low population zone (LPZ).
In this connection, the Commission has, from the earliest days of licensing reactors, required the use of conservative assumptions and calculational methods in assessing consequences of a hypothetical release from the nuclear facility.
The review conducted in conformance with 10 CFR Part 100 require-ments establishes, for an acceptable site, that certain numerical exposure guidelines are met and in addition that the number and density of people within the LPZ are such that appropriate pro-tective measures could be taken on their behalf in the event of an accident.
3
Beyond the siting criteria and the question of site suitability ic the second review element which is to determine compliance with the licensing requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E thereto for emergency plans.
This review element focuses on the question of organizational and operational preparedness to cope with emergencies.
A principal aspect of this review is to determine whether the applicant has made or will make appropriate arrangements with appropriate Federal, State and local officials to assure that, in the event of an actual emergency, necessary evacuation or other protective actions will be taken to protect offsite members of the public.
Although these arrangements include the protective measures contemplated by 10 CFR Part 100, in connection with the LPZ, they need not be limited to application within the LPZ, nor to measures intended to cope primarily I
with the airborne pathway (cloud passage) covered by Sections 100.3 and 100.11 of Part 100.
Such arrangements are expected to be guided by emergency action criteria, arrived at through a coordinated effort among local, State, and Federal authorities.
Such criteria are believed to be a sound and prudent approach to the management of the small residual risk involved in the operation of nuclear facilities.
Indeed, their application to ingestion exposure pathways involving accidental spills into drinking water tources and accidental deposi-tion of radioactive material onto agricultural crops or areas used for forage for milk cows has long been included as part of the review of emergency plans.
Since one would anticipate that there 4
would generally be time to monitor the actual situation for releases impacting from these pathways and to take appropriate action based.
on existing conditions, the Commission review has generally not emphasized postulated accident scenarios for evaluation but rather inas assured that there are adequate arrangements for prompt notice to appropriate officials and arrangements to perform the appropriate monitoring, even though this may involve areas of consideration extending beyond the LPZ.
The principal considerations used in assessing emergency plans during the siting and licensing review of nuclear power plants including the need for such planning beyond the LPZ are summarized below.
1.
Physical Characteristics - The Commission considers that the following physical characteristics in the vicinity of the site are relevant to the evaluation of protective actions which may be taken in the event of an accidental release of radioactive material:
the numbers and proximity to the site boundary of resident and transient persons and the relative speed with which warnings can be communicated to them, the availability and character of evacuation routes and means of transportation, the availability and locations of structures suitable for sheltering people, and the presence of institutions (such as hospitals, nursing homes, and schools) which may require special l
l 5
emergency planning arrangements.
Measures to compensate for those characteristics that may be adverse to the effective implementation of emergency actions should be identified and proposed by an applicant and reviewed by the NRC staff.
Partic-ular attention is to be given to the foregoing as they affect the effectiveness of taking protective actions within the LPZ established pursuant to the Commission's siting criteria of 10 CFR Part 100.
This should not, however, preclude the con-sideration of utilizing emergency plans to provide additional protective benefit to persons beyond a LP1 as a matter of reasonable and prudent risk management, to assure protection beyond that afforded by safety design features and the siting of facilities in accordance with 10 CFR Part 100.
2.
Protective Measures - An essential element for reducing indi-vidual and population exposures fror.1 accidental releases of radioactive material is effective and timely protective measures.
The establishment of soundly based emergency plans which include appropriate protective measures prior to the initial operation of a nuclear power plant is a basic Commission requirement in its licensing process.
The NRC staff has found that there may be circumstances for which the available strategies for taking protective actions outside the facility site boundaries are limited.
As an example, 6
cutdoor recreaticnal activitics in the vicinity of a plant, and it is clear that existing structures are insufficient to provide needed temporary shelter.
In such an instance, the staff has considered it appropriate to emphasize evacuation.
When taken in conjunction with approprfate protective action criteria, such l
as EPA Protective Action Guides, these considerations may lead to planning for protective actions beyond the LPZ.
3.
Emergency Plans - Protection of the public from the effects of severe natural phenomena, such as hurricanes or tornadoes, and sevare man-made events, such es dam failures or toxic gas releases, are typically c;'.2idered in gener'al emergency plans.
Such general emergere y plans are developed and maintained by agencies'of the State and local governments.
Emergency plans for protecting the public health and safety from accidental releases of radioactive ma+.erial involve many of the same types of actions and thus are designed to be compatible with these broader general emergency plans.
Emergency plans for nuclear power plants are designed to permit protection to the public by reducing individual and population exposures resulting from I" Manual of Prctective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents", (Chapter 2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--
EPA-520/1-75-001, September 1975.
7
postulated nuclear accidents.
The benefits from the emergency plan must be commensurate with the risks to the health and safety of the public associated with the implementation of the protective action.
4.
Procedures - The general authorities and capabilities of Federal, State and local officials for carrying out emergency plans are recognized.
A goal of the Commission's review is to determine whether the applicant has developed adequate arrangements with Federal, State and local officials to assure that offective initiation of protective actions within and beyond the LPZ will be implemented, should the need arise.
An important factor in emergency planning is the availability to the decision-making official (Federal, State and local) of all information necessary to determine the magnitude of the emergency and to decide whether protective actions should or should not be taken in light of the total risk (nuclear and non-nuclear) to the public health and safety from the action.
Each licensee must establish procedures-to assure that such officials are provided with adequate information throughout the course of any emergency.
A general examination of emergency planning in the licensing of nuclear power plants is underway.
In the interim, the Commission is firmly of the opinion that coatinued implementation of its practice 8
to review the possible need for emergency plans beyond the LPZ as necessitated by circumstances in the vicinity of the site is required.
However, in the New England Power Company, et al., and Public Service Company of New Hampshire decisions, ALAB-390, 5 NRC 733 (1977), the Commission's regulations were construed as not permitting licensing 4
consideration of evacuation plans for the protection of persons i
outside the low population zone.
In light of the above, the Commis-sion believes that its regulations in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, should be amended to reflect the emergency planning considerations here discussed.
The proposed change to the rule on the licensing requirements for emergency plans clarifies the intent that consider-ation of emergency planning beyond the LPZ is a factor in the licensing review and is not a factor in the site suitability review under 10 CFR Part 100.
Pending the receipt of comments and the promulgation of a final rule,,the proposed amendment will be used as interim guidance in reviewing an applicant's emergency plan for a construction permit.
In cases where a construction permit has already been issued, the emergency plans will be reviewed at the operating license stage in accordance with the interim guidance of the proposed amendment or depending on timing, the amendment as promulgated in final form.
The Commission regards dealing with this matter at the operating license stage, as opposed to reopening construction permit reviews, to be a more reasonable approach.
Because this proposed rule involves a limitei -lement in addition to the siting and engineering l
i i
9
safety considerations to assure, protection of the public health and safety, this procedure for review or existing permits and licenses is acceptable.
Should the rule become final as proposed, the NRC staff will review the emergency plans of operating facilities as a part of its present practice of monitoring and updating the emer-gency plans of an operating facility as needed.
The Commission will be requesting current and operating licensees to examine their emergency plans to determine whether they are in compliance with this proposed rule change.
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 an amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E is contemplated.
All interested persons who desire to submit written comments should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch, Washington, D. C.
20555, by Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Section I of Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by adding at the end thereof a new paragraph to read as follows:
A Insert date 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
10 t-n-r
APPENDIX E - EMERGENCY PLANS FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES c
I.
Introduction A
A A
A A
For Nuclear Power Reactors, provisions for emergency protective measures to reduce exposures from an accidental release of radioactive material shall be considered, at a minimum, within the.
low population zone (LPZ) as specified in 10 CFR Part 100.
The extent to which emergency planning, which may include planning for evacuation measures, should extend to areas beyond the LPZ shall be based on the design features of the facility and the physical char-acteristics of the environs in the vicinity of the site, taking into account the emergency protective action criteria developed by appro-priate Federal authorities, and by appropriate State and local governmental a"thorities in cooperation with the Commission.
(Sec. 161. Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948 (42 U.S.C. 2201); Sec. 201.
Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, (42 U.S.C. 5841))
Dated at W&shington, D.C. this day of t
197_.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 11
~
4 v
9 T
s ENCLOSURE 2 Draft Congressional Letter u
a 4
L G
9
.g.
'h a a 4 -4
- w
,..,..,,,,, y.,,g_..,
E Dear Enclosed for the information of the are copies of a notice of proposed rule making to be published in the Federal Register.
At the present time, a general examination of emergency planning in the siting and licensing of nuclear power plants is underway.
In the interim, i
the Commission is of the opinion that it is necessary to continue the practice of reviewing the need for emergency plans beyond the low popula-tion zone, as necessitated by circumstances in the vicinity of the site.
However, in the New England Power Company, et al., and Public Service Company of New Hampshire decisions, ALAB-390, 5 NRC 733 (1977),
the Com-mission's regulations were construed as not permitting licensing consid-eration of evacuation plans for the protection of persons outside the low population zone.
In light of the above, the Commission believes that Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix E, should be amended.
The proposed change to the rule on the licensing requirements for emergency plans clarifies the intent that consideration of Enclosura 2
P..
-a i,
2 emergency planning beyond the low population zone is a factor in the licensing review and is not a factor in the site suitability review under 10 CFR Part 100.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosure:
Notice of Rule Making a
b I
l 1
l_
( _ _._.,
J t
4 4#
ENCLOSURE 3 Comments from Office of State Programs
,w O
y 4
O s
~
y-
~
m so.s vMt u.. S,,
E hw.,,* w, se4., est.m4 h..-
a * < +w M 4
n
. s..,,.
.~,s.
w.
.....5
._a
.,,