ML20010E371
| ML20010E371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/21/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010E370 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-RICM, TASK-SE SECY-81-503, NUDOCS 8109040028 | |
| Download: ML20010E371 (31) | |
Text
gcn.i;;MaMLDWLF+;MWM?KH5ikuwwl%H3%NM%%;1
. c.
pR MGu ityp I'dL,j SECY-81-503 August 21, 1981 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Commission Meeting)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E - IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval for publication of a proposed amend-ment in the Federal Register.
Category:
This paper covers a major policy matter.
Background:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency plan-ning regulation which became effective on November 3,1980.
The rule required licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2, 1981; to submit im31ementing procedures by March 1, 1981; to implement the plans ay April 1,1981; and to demon-strate, among other things, by July 1, 1981:
"that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume expo-sure pathway EPZ. The design objective shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposc'e pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes."
Discussion:
On August 11, 1981, the Commission discussed possible enforcement actions for licensees who have failed to comply with the July 1, 1981 requirement contained in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(5) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3.
The licensees failure to meet the July 1,1981 date was attributed to the unforeseen difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the designing, procuring and installation of the prompt notification systems.
Contact:
Mike Jamgochian, RES 443-5942 Brian Grimes, 0IE 492-4614 8109040028 810827 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
The Commissioners 2
The Commission determined at the August 11 meeting to take, at this time, no enforcement action against licensees not in compliance with the July 1,1981 deadline for completion of a prompt public notificati.o_n system contained in the emergency planning regulations except for those licensees who did not notify the Commission of 1
their inability to meet the deadline.
Rather, the Commission directed the staff to preaare a proposed rule change which will provide an extension of t1e July 1,1981 implementation date for the prompt notification capability system. to this paper provides the proposed rule change that the staff was directed to prepamwith the new date being July 1,1982.
The staff considered a range of dates for extension which might meet the Commission's objective. D>.tes from January 1982 to September 1982 were considered.
Factors favoring an early date are (1) the possible increased efforts by utilities which might result from earlier prospective enforcement actions thus possibly and (2) g in earlier installation of the systems in several cases, resultin the improved posture of the agency with respect to con-cern about noncompliance with the previously set date. The main factor favoring a.later date is that licensees have informed the staff that a July 1982 date will provide adequate time for all licensees to achieve compliance with the rule.
In recomending a July 1982 date, the staff has also evaluated the impact on the public health and safety.
The staff finds that overall emergency i
preparedness has significantly improved within the last year at and around every nuclear power plant site. This significant improvement has been confirmed by the NRC emergency planning teams as well as the FEMA teams that have been monitoring nuclear emergency exercises involving state and local governments and the licensees.
Likewise, the staff recognizes that there exist customary warning systems (police, radio, telephone) which are viewed as sufficiently ef4ctive in many postulated accident scenarios.
Although a date of July 1,1982 is recommended and has been used in the attached draft rule, the exact date that the Commission decides on can be easily substituted.
The staff is enclosing (Enclosure 5) a draft notice of violation which the staff is planning to send to licensees who missed tha July 1,1981 installation date and who did not notify the Commission prior to July 1, 1981.
Cost Estimate:
The staff does not anticipate that there will be any increased costs,to the NRC or to licensees associated with the proposed rule changes.
l l
t
The Commissioners 3
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
1.
Make a finding that there exists sufficient reason to believe that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken for the protection of the public health and safety and approve for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposea rulemaking (Enclosure 1) extending the present July 1,1981 implementation date for public notification systems to July 1, 1982.
2.
Note:
a.
That the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1) states that the Commission intends to make the final rule, when promulgated, effective immediately upon publication, pursuant to S U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
b.
That appropriate Congressional committees will be notified of the proposed rule (draft Congressional letter is Enclosure 2).
c.
That the ACRS is being infonned of the proposed rule.
d.
That, pursuant to K 51.5(d)(3) of the Commission's regulations, an environmental impact statement, nega-tive declaration, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the subject proposed amendn.ents because there is no substantive or significant environmental impact.
That the proposed rule contains a statement that the e.
Commission's preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Anal-ysis concludes that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, pursuant to the Regulatory _
Flexibility Act of 1980, K 605(b).
f.
That the proposed rule contains a statement that, pur-suant to the Papenvork Reduction Act of 1980, the Commission has made a preliminary determination that the proposed rule does not impose new recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting requirements.
That the staff will directly notify affected applicants, g.
licensees, State governments, and persons of the pro-posed rule; including parties sponsoring related con-tentions in ongoing licensing proceedings.
h.
That a public announcement of the proposed rule will be made.
The Caamissioners 4.
i.
The staff's conclusions set forth in Enclosure 4, provide the analysis called for by the Periodic and Systematic Review of the Regulations.
The criteria used were derived from Executive Order 12044, which was rescinced on February 17, 1981, by Executive Order 12291 (see memorandum dated February 27, 1981, from L. Bickwit, General Counsel to the Commission).
This approach is proposed as an interim procedure until the Commission decides what to do in response _.to Executive Order 12291.
j.
That a Preliminary Value/ Impact Analysis has been pre-pared (Enclosure 3).
k.
That a draft notice of violation similar'to tnat in
' will be sent to those licenses who missed the July 1,1981 installation date by more than two months and who did not infonn the Commission of this situation prior to July 1,1981.
Sunshine Act:
Recommend consideration at an open meeting.
Scheduling:
For early consideration.
N
%0 l
Wil k m J. Dircks ~
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2.
Draft Congressional Letter 3.
Preliminary Value/ Impact Analysis 4
TMI Action Plan Review 5.
Draft Notice of '!iolation SECY NOTE: Affirmation vote sheets are being distributed with this paper for use in the event that a final vote is not taken at a Commission meeting.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP Secretariat
ENCLOSURE 1 i
I
)
I i
h
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E Energency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in order to extend for one year the present July 1,1981 date by which there must be operational pranpt public notification systems around all nuclear power plants.
Comments received DATES:
Comment period expires after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.
~
ADDRESSES:
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments and suggestions on the proposal to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments received by the Commission may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
i
- Insert cate 30 days after publication in Federal Register.
1
[7590-01]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian K. Grimes, Director, Division of Emergency Preparedness, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (telephone:
301-492-4614).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
The Prooosed Rule On August 19, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (45 FR 55402) amendments to its regulations (10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the upgrading of emergency preparad-ness.
The effective date of these regulations was November 3,1980.
Among other things, the regulations required licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2,1981; to submit implementing procedures by March 1,1981 and that the emergency plans be implemented by April 1, 1981.
One element that must be demonstrated in an acceptable licensee's emergency plan is that:
"By July 1,1981, the nuclear power reactor licensee shall
. demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
The design objective shall be to have the capability to essen-tially complete the initial notification of the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes."
The NRC staff has evaluated the level of compliance by the industry and noted that only about 12%
of NRC power reactor licensees have been able to meet fully the July 1,1981 date for. installation of a prompt public notification system which meets the criteria in 10 CFR KK 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E to Part 50.
The licensees inability to meet the July 1,1981 date has been attributed to the unforeseen difficulties and 2
L-
[7590-01]
uncertainties surrounding the designing, procuring, and installation of the prompt notification systems.
In establishing the implementation date, the Commission was concerned that these factors would inhibit the ability to comply with a short schedule and set the July 1981 date with this in mind (45 FR 55407).
While licensees compliance with the prompt notification requirement has been delayed, the NRC considers that emergency plans and preparedness have significantly improved within the last year at and around every nuclear power plant site.
This significant improvement has been confirmed by NRC teams who have visited a number of plant sites to 9 valuate the licensees compliance with the upgraded emergency planning regulations of August 1980.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have monitored numerous nuclear emergency exercises involving State and local governments and thc licensees, and again have
~
witnessed a significant improvement in onsite and offsite emergency pre-paredness.
Based on the above information and on a recognition that there exists
~
customary warning systems (police, radio, telephone), which are viewed as sufficiently effective in many postulated accident scenarios, the Commission is proposing to defer the implementation date of the prompt public notification capability requirement fran July 1,1981 to July 1, 1982.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that there exists sufficient reason to believe that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken for the protection of the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency during the extended time period for compliance.
e
[
3 i
i i,
-e,-cr.-n,-._
w.,r-y-
y,,-,
,.., -.m.w
.,,m,
.-,,--,,3
-~-..,yy,,.
[7590-01)
The Commission's decision 4to defer the date for requirir.g full imple-mentation of the prompt public notification capability requirement is made, as described above, after additional consideration of industry-wide difficulty in acquiring the necessary equipment, permits, and clearances.
This proposed deferral does not represent any fundamental departure from the rationale the Commission used in adopting and sustaining the public notification capability requirement.
See the hnal rule on Emergency Planning, 45 FR 55402, 55407 ( Aug.19,1980), reconsideration denied, CLI80-40, 12 NRC 636 (1980).
It is the Commission's coittinued judgment that prompt public notification is an important consideration in the offsite protection of the public in the event of a nuclear accident.
This offsi'n protection of the public includes a number of separate steps -- recognition of the potential severity 'of the accident by the utility, communication of the perceived threat to offsite authorities, decision by offsite officials on the need for protective action, capability to spread public warning, and actual respase by the public.
The emergency planning rule is premised on reducing to the extant i
possible -- and to the extent the NRC can regulate -- the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step.
Every aspect of the rule, except the prompt notification system, is still required.
In changing the implementation date of the prompt public notification capability requirement, the Commission recognizes the continued need for this requirement and expects all utilitius to complete the installation of this system as soon as practicable but not later than July 1,1982.
i l
However,the Commission intends to take appropriate enforcement action l
against licensees who did not, prior to July 1,1981, notify the Commission of their inability to meet ~ the July 1,1981 deadline.
4 L
[7590-01]
Significant licensee perfonnance strengths and waaknesses are evaluated in the NRC Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP).
The SALP program specifically includes evaluation of licensee performance in emergency preparedness.
Accordingly, a licensee's efforts in attempting to meet the July '1,1981 date for installing the prompt public notification capability will be a factor in that licensee's SALP.
I*
Prooosed Apolication of the Final Rule The Commission also is proposing in this rule that the four-month period for correcting deficiencies, provided in K 50.54(s)(2), should not apply to any licensee not in compliance with the public notification system requirement by July 1,1982, the new deadline date.
If a licensee is not in compliance with this requirement by July 1,1982, the Commis-sion will consider taking appropriate enforcement actions promptly at that time.
In determining appropriate enforcement action to initiate, the Commission will take into account, among other factors, the demon-strated diligence of the licensee in attempting to fulfill the prompt public notification capability requirement.
The Commission will consider whether the licensee has kept the NRC informed of the steps that it has taken, when those steps were taken and any significant problems encountered, and the updated timetable which the licensee expects will be met in achieving full compliance with the prompt public notification capability requirements.
With respect to requests for exemptions that NRC has received from nuclear power reactor licensees concerning the prompt public r.otification requirement and deadlines for installation and operational capability, the Commission has decided to deny these requests in light of the pro-posed extension of the July 1, 1981 date.
Any licensee not able to meet 5
[7590-01]~
the new deadline date of July 1,1982 will be subject to enforcement penalties after the new date.
This will eliminate unnecessary and costly administrative actions needed to consider cresent exemption requests that will essentially become moot by the proposed extension of the July 1, 1981 date.
This approach will also permit the NRC to focus its considera-tion upon a reduced number of noncompliance situations which remain at the time of the new deadline.
It is expected that the most efficient use of NRC resources will be achieved by this treatment of present exemp-tion requests relating to the July 1,1981 operational date requirement.
If the proposed rule is subsequently promulgated as a final rule, it is the Commission's present intention to make it effective immediately upon publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. K 553(d)(1), since the rule is expected to significantly relieve the obligation of certain licensees' with respect to the present July 1,1981 deadline for operational public
~
notification systems.
In that regard, the Commis. on notes that the final rule, when effective, will be applied to ongoing licensing proceedings now pending and to issues or contentions t1erein. Union of Conce-ned Scientists.
- v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir.1974).
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1930, 5 U.S.C.
K 605(b), the Commission has performed a preliminary Flexibility Analysis and concludes that this rule will not, if :romulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed I
rule concerns an operational date for public notification systems for nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to Section 103 and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. XX 2133, 2134b.
The electric utility companies owning and oper: ting these nuclear power 6
i
[7590-01]
plants are dominant in their service. areas and do not fall within the definition of a small business found in Section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. X 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
Accordingly, there is no significant economic impact on any small entity, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 2980 (Pub. L.96-511), the NRC has made a determination that this proposed rule does not impose new recordkeeping, infomation collection, or reporting requirements.
Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given trat adoption of the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E ic contemplated.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PR3 DUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES l
The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs.103,104,161,182,183,189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 95d, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2123, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2239); sec. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1243,1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842,5846), unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.73 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Section 50.78-50.81 also issued l
under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sections 50.100-50.102 issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 223I)., For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
7
[7590-01]
@ 50.41(i) issued under 5.a. 161i, 68 Stet. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(i));
Q 50.70, 50.71, and 50.78 issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o), and the laws referred to in Appendices.
1.
Section IV.0.3 of Appendix E to Part 50 is revid to read as follows:
APPENDIX E - EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS FOR PROTECTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES D.
Notification Procedures 3.
A licensee shall have the capability to notify responsible State and local governmental agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency.
The licensee shall demonstrate that the State / local officials have the capability to make a publ.ic notification decision promptly on being informed by the licensee of an emergency condition.
By July 1,1982,,* the nuclear power reactor licensee shall demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alert-i ing and providing pranpt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
The four-month ceriod in 10 CFR K 50.54(s)(2) for the correction of energency olan deficiencies shall not acoly to deficiencies in the initial installation of this oublic notification system that is recuired by July 1,1082.. The design objective of the promot oublic notification system shall be to have the capability to essentially complete the initial notification of the public within the
- Tne regulation is typed in comparative text in order.to simplify review.
~
8
[7590-01]
plume.xposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes. The use of this notification capability will range from immediate notification of the public (within 15 minutes of the time that State and local officials are notified that a situation exists requiring urgent action) to the more likely events where there is substantial time available fce the State and local governmental officials to make a judgment whether or not to activate the public notification system.
Where there is a decision to activate the notification system, the State and local officials will determine whether to activate the entire notification system simultaneously or in a graduated or staged manner.
The responsibility for activating such a public notification system shall remain with the appropriate government authorities.
Dated at this day of For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chil k Secretary of the Commission 9
9
~
-...~.-.-. _ - -
1 I
i t
4 e
i l
1 d
1 ENCLOSURE 2 l
?
t i
1
.=
f l
j i
e i
I 8
I j
l
'4--..
l DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the infonnation of the Subcommittee on is a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in order to extend for one year the present July 1,1981 date by which there must be operational pranpt public notification systems around all nuclear power plants.
The Commission has evaluated the level of compliance with the industry and noted that only about one-third of its power reactor licensees have been able to meet fully the July 1,1981 date for installation of a prompt public notification system which meets the criteria in 10 CFR KK 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E to Part 50.
The licensees inability to meet the July 1,1981 date has been attrib-uted to unfc cseen difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the designing, procuring, and installe. ion of the prompt notification systems.
In establish-ing the implementation date, the Commission was concerned that these factors would inhibit the ability to comply with a short schedule and set the July 1981 date with this in mind (45 FR 55407).
While licensees compliance with the prompt notification "equirement has been delayed, the Commission considers that emergency plans and preparedness have 1
significantly improved within the last year at and around every nuclear power plant site.
This significant improvement has been confirmed by NRC teams who have visited a number of plant sites to evaluate the licensees compliance with the upgraded emergency planning regulations of August 1980.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have monitored numerous nuclear emergency exercises involving State and local governments and the licensees, and again have witnessed a significant improvement in onsite and offsite emergency preparedness.
Based on the above information and on a recognition that there exists customary warning systems (police, radio, telephone), which are viewed as sufficiently effective in many postulated accident scenarios, the Commission is proposing to defer the implementation date of the prompt public notification capability requirement from July 1, 1981 to July 1, 1982.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that there exists sufficient reason to believe that appro-priate protective measures can and will be taken for the protection of the health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency during the extended time period for compliance.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking l
2 L
\\
O %
4 m
ENCLOSURE 3 e
O O
n.-
n--
.e.,-
-,,. ~,,.,..,.. - -.
n,
i PRELIMINARY VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.
THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Description The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations in order to extend for one year the present July 1, 1981 date by which there must be operational prompt public notification systems around all nuclear power plants.
1.2 Need for the Proposed Action On August 19, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commist:cn published in the Federal Register (45 FR 55402) amendments to its regulations (10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E) concerning the upgrading of emergency preparedness.
The effec-tive date for these regulations was November 3, 1980.
Among other-things, the regulations required licensees to submit upgraded emergency plans by January 2, 1981; to submit implementing procedures by March 1, 1981 and that the emergency plans are implemented by April 1, 1981.
One element that must be demonstrated in an acceptable licensee's emergency plan is that, I
"By July 1,1981, the nuclear power reactor licensee shall demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been establishad for alert-ing and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ.
The design objective shall be to have the caps-bility to essentially complete the initial notification of the public.
l within the plume exposure pathway EPZ within about 15 minutes."
1
~
The NRC staff has evaiuated the level of compliance with the industry and noted that only about 12%
of its power reactor licensees have been able to meet fully the July 1,1981 date for installation of a pranpt public notifi-cation system which meets the criteria in 10 CFR KK 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E to Part 50.
The licensees inability to meet the July 1,1981 date has been attributed to the unforeseen difficul ~ies and uncertainties surrounding the designing, procuring, and installation of the pranpt noti ~fication systems.
In establishing the implementation date, the Commission was concerned that these factors would inhibit the ability to comply and set the July 1981 date with this in mind (45 FR 55407).
While licensee's compliance with the prompt notification requirement has been delayed, the NRC staff considars that emergency plans and preparedness have significantly improved within the last year at and around every nuclear power plant site.
This significant improvement has been confirmed by NRC teams who have visited a number of plant sites to evaluate the licensees coroliance with the upgraded emergency planning regulations of August 1980.
In addition, the Fedbral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NRC have monitored numerous nuclear emergency exercises involving State and local governments and the licensees, and again have witnessed a significant improve-ment in onsite and offsite emergency preparedness.
l l
Based on the above information and on a recognition that there exists customary warning systems (police, radio, telephone), which are viewed as sufficiently effective in many postulated accident scenarios, the Commission 1
2 i
is proposing to defer the implementation date of the prompt public notifica-tion capability requirement from July 1,1981 to July 1,1982.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that there exists sufficient reason to believe that appropriate protective measures can and will be taken for the protection of tc= health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency during the extended time peric' for compliance.
1.3 Value/Imoact of the Prooosed Action 1.3.1 NRC The proposed deferral does not represent any fundamental departure from the rationale the Commission used in adopting and sustaining the public notification capability requirement.
See the final rule on Energency Planning, 45 FR 55402, 55407(August 19, 1980), reconsideration denied, CLI 80-40, 12 NRC 636 (1980).
It is the Commission's continued judgment that prompt public rs'ification is a key consideration in the offsite protection of the public i" the event of a nuclear accident.
This offsite protection of the public inciades a number of separate steps -- recognition of the potential severity of the accident by the utility, communicatien of the perceivec threat to offsite authorities, decision by offsite officials on the need for protective action, capability to spread public warning, and actual response by the public.
The emergency planning rule is premised on reducing to the extent possible -- and to the extent the NRC can regulate -- the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step.
Every aspect of the rule, except the prompt notification system, is still required.
In changing the implementation date of the pranpt public' notifica-tion capability requirement, the Commission recognizes the continued need for 3
this requi.ement, the Commission recognizes the continued need for this require-ment and urges all utilities to complete the installation of this system as soon as practicabl. out not later than July 1, 1982.
In taking this action, the Commission does not forego the opportunity to take appropriate enforcement action against licensees found to have acted in disregard of NRC requirements.
i.3.2 Other Government Agencies The state and local governmental agencies will not have a prompt public notification capability until July 1982 to use ir. the case of a radiological emergency.
Applicant agencies (e.g., TVA) would have more time to install a prompt public notification system around its nuclear power reactor sites.
1.3.3 Industry The proposed action will provide the industry with relief on implementing the prompt public nctifi systems.
1.3.4 Public Without the prompt public notification systems the public would probably not be notified of an radiological emergency within 15 minutes.
However, the Commission's decision to propose defering the impleme.ntation date for one year is based on the fact that there has occurred a significant upgrading of emer-l gency preparedness in ano around every nuclear ~ power plant site as well as the existance of customary warning systems (police, radio, telphone), which would be adequately effective in many postulated accident scenarios.
In view of the above the Commission, finds that there exists sufficient reason to believe that 4
-.=
m s
appropriate protection measures can and will be taken for the protection of the i
health and safety of the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
1.4 Decision on the Procosed Action The proposed rule changes should be published in the Federal Register to obtain public comments thereon.
2.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES Because the proposed rule change is being undertiken to account for industry-wide difficulty in acquiring the necessary equipment, permits and i
clearances, no technical alternatives to their recommendations have been con-f sidered.
{
3.
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES Potential NRC procedures that could b3 used to promulgate the proposed action of a proposed rule change include the following:
1; a.
Rule change b.
Enforcement action l
e
=
5
4.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Autnority The rule change is intended to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amendeu, and the NRC FY 1980 Authorization Act.
4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment Since the rule change does not represent a major action, as defined by 10 CFR K 51.5(a)(10), implementation of the proposed rule change does not reqJire a NEPA assessment.
5.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICY These rule changes relate to the NRC emergency preparedness regulations, Regulatory Guide 1.101 and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1.
6.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS l
To proceed expeditiously with rulemaking.
I l
l 6
l
e 8
e w
EllCLOSURE 4 9
,-,n._n--
--y
TMI ACTION PLAN REVIEW The NRC has conducted a preliminary review of this prop-~i regulation to determine that they satisfy the applicable criteria contained in Task IV.G.2 of the NRC Action Plan Developed As A Result Of The TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660, May 1980).
Briefly, those criteria and the NRC's preliminary conclusions are as follows:
1.
The orooosed reculations are needed:
Few licensees have been able to fully meet the July 1,1981 date for instcllation of a prompt public noti-fication system which meet the criteria in the August 1980 regulations.
The licensees inability"to meet the July 1,1981 date has been attributed to the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding the designing, procuring, and installation of the prompt notification systems, therefore the need for the regulation.
2.
The direct and indirect effects of the reculation have been considered:
The Commission's decision to defer full implementation of the prompt public notification capability requiremen! is made, as described abov'e, to account for industry-wide difficulty in acquiring the necessary equipment, permits, and clearances.
This defement does not represent any fundamental departure from the rationale the Commission used in adopting and sustaining the public notification capability requirement.
Final Rule on Emergency Planning, 45 FR 55402, 55407 (Aug. 19, 1980), reconsideration denied, CLI 80-40, 12 NRC 635 (1980).
It is the Commission's continued judgment tnat prompt public notifica-l l
tion is a key consideration in the protection of the public offsite in the event
[
of an emergency -- the public must be able to be alerted to impending danger in che event of a nuclear accident.
This protection of the public offsite l
1 l
l
includes a number of separate steps -- recognition of the potential severity of the accident by the utility, communication of the perceived threat to off-site authorities, decision by offsite officials on need for protective action, time to spread public warning, and actual response by the public.
The emergency planning rule is premised on reducing to the extent possible -- and to the extent the NRC can regulate -- the time required for and the uncertainty associated with each step.
Every aspect of the rule, except the prompt notification system, is still required and should now be in place.
In changing the implementation date of the prompt public notification capability requiremant, the Commission recognizes the continued need for this requirement and urges all utilities to complete the installation of this system as soon as practicable but not later than July 1, 1982.
3.
Alternative aoproaches have been considered and the least burdensome of the acceptable alternatives has been chosen:
The alternative approach to proposed rulemaking would be for the Commission to enforce the July 1,1971 date for installation of a prompt public notification capability.
4.
Public comments have been considered and an ac'eouate resoonse has been prepared:
These proposed rule changes now invites public comment.
5.
The regulation is written :o that it is understandable to those who m_ust comoly with it:
These proposed rule changes satisfy this criterion, particularly in light of its simplicity.
6.
An estimate has been made of the recorting burdens or recordkeeping reouirements necessary for compliance with the regulation:
The proposed rule change does not increase any such burdens or requirements which may otherwise exist, nor does it establish any new reporting burdens or recordkeeping require-ments.
2
_ _ =.
j -
I 7.
The name, address, and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency
}
I official has been identified:
See contacts listed in proposed Federal Register notice.
8.
A olan for evaluating the regulation aftcr its issuance has been i
i developed:
Public comments, licensee and NRC staff experience, and other inputs will be examined on a periodic basis to determine the effectiveness of the pro-j posed rule.
Based upon the foregoing review of the proposed regulation, the NRC has preliminarily concluded, as its draft regulatory analysis, that this regulation satisfies the applicable criteria.
l l
r.
i i
I T
i 3
I J
l I
,i i
)
i a
1 4
i t
i t
1 i
4 1
1 i
i 1
l t,
i i
1 3
.i
,2 i
b 1
P ENG.SURE 5 r
I i
I I
e p
t l
.=
9 9
9 e
~* w w w v 4m
- w wwwsrmm m, w
wn~~-
--= -.-
Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION
~
XYZ Company Docket No. 50-As a result of the (Date) submittal from (licensee) in response to the July 1,1981 NRC request for infonnation on emergency planning and in accordance witn Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980),
the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) and Section IV, D.3 of Appendix E, require tna t by July 1,1981, each nuclear power reactor licensee demonstrate that administrative and physical means have been established for alerting and providing prompt instructions to the public within the plume exposure pathway of the Emergency Planning Zone within about 15 minutes.
Contrary to the above, (licensee) was unable to demonstrate thIt means had been established for alerting and promptly providing public instruction within the plume exposure pathway of the Emergency Planning Zone within about 15 minutes.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
(Supplement I)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, XYZ Electric Ocmpany is hereby required to submit to this office within twenty-five days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanaticn in reply, including:
(1) admission or denial of the alleged item of noncompliance; (2) the reasons for the item of noncompliance if admitted; (3) the corrective steps which have been taken ar,d the results achieved; (4) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Under the authority of Section 182 of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, this response shall tie submitted under oath or affirmation.
rne responses directed by this Notice are not subject to the clearance precedures of the Office of Management and Budget is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, FL 96-511.
Victor Stallo, Jr., Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Dated t
[, ' (,*. L
==Dear
- ==
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning rule which became effective on November 3,19E0.
The rule required among other things that ecch power reactor licensee demonstrate by July 1,1981 that a prcmpt public notification system was in place.
By a letter dated July 1, 1981, each NRC regional director requested licensees to provide a status report by July 24, 1981, on the operability of the notification system.
Your (date) response indicated that you had not met the July 1,1981, requirement and the.t prior to that date you knew, or should have known, that you would not meet it.
Furthermore, you kaew that the system would not be substantially completed within a short time after the deadline.
Although a majority of licensees did not meet the July 1.1981 deadline, most of them notified the Commission prior to July ano that they would be unable to meet the deadline and some sought an exemption.
In view.of the Commission's intention to extend the compliance date, enforcement action will not be taken against those. licensees who provided prior notification to the Commission.
Our records indicate that you did not inform the Commission prior to July 1,1981, of your inability to meet that date.
While neither the Commission's regulations nne your license conditions required you to inform NRC, the degree of candor expected between licensees and NRC is such that we expected you to communicate in writing the status of your compliance to the Commission.
In view of your failure to provide notification to the Commission, I am taking enforcement action in your case.
Accordingly, a notice of violation for failure to meet the July 1,1981 requirement is enclosed.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter will be placec in the NRC's Public Document Room.
M:w AMk. &,. Mww~
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
Appendix, Notice of Violation
__ _