ML20032D793
| ML20032D793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20032D789 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8111170490 | |
| Download: ML20032D793 (16) | |
Text
-
ii.
38:-
~Eh Rg PRESENTATION TO COMMISSION 9
I.$'
SECY 81-570 EMERGENCY PREPAREDilESS FINDINGS FOR LOW POWER i
LICENSES SECY81-55i
- TIMING 0F EXERCISE IN LICENSING PROCESS DVERVIEW 0F FEf1A/flRC INTERACTION IN THE LICENSING PROCESS O
~
t PROPOSED CHANGE TO 10 CFR' 50.47 REQUIREMENTS FOR A FEMA FINDING ON THE ADEQUACY OF 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR LOW POWER-
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS RELATED TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER OPERATING LICENSE (UP TO 5% OF THE RATED POWER)
REASON:
RESPONSE'TO COMMISSION DIRECTION AFTER FEMA /NRC CONSULTATION TO CLARIFY THAT NO NRC OR FEMA FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE STATE OF 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FUEL LOAD AND LOW POWER TESTING SCHEDULE:
SECY-81-570 UNDER REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION:
OCTOBER, 1981 t
SECY-81-570 PROPOSED AENDENT TO 10 CFR PART 50 AND TO APPENDIX E:
MODIFICATION TO EERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REGULATION
' AENDENT ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR ANY FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS ON THE ADEQUACY OF 0FFSITE EERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS PRIOR T0 ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER LICENSE LOW POWER OPERATION RISKS ARE REDUCED FISSION PRODUCT INVENTORY IS LESS DUE TO LOW POWER AND.SHORT PERIOD OF OPERATION REDUCTION IN REQUIRED CAPACITY OF SYSTEMS DESIGNED TO MITIGATE CONSEQUENCES OF AN ABNORf%L EVENT THE TIE SCALE FOR TAKING PROTECTIVE ACTIONS AND ACTIONS.TO MITIGATE ACCIDENTS ARE MUCH LONGER AT LOW POWER, (AT LEAST 10 HOURSL MORE TIE IS AVAILABLE FOR AD H0C ACTIONS i
i
7-STAFF HAS CONSULTED WITH FEMA SINCE FEMA FINDINGS PRIOR TO LOW POWER LICENSE ARE ELIMINATED.
THE PROPOSED RULE WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THAT ANY FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) 0F 950.47 ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (C) 0F 850.47, WHICH PERMIT AN APPLICANT TO SHOW THAT ANY DEFICIENCIES FOUND ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT FOR THE PLANT IN QUESTION.
THE STAFF PROPOSED TO EVALUATE ANY DEFICIENCIES AGAINST 550.47(B) TO DETERMINE THEIR RELEVANCE TO LOW POWER OPERATIONS, BUT THE PRE 0PERATIONAL INSPECTION PROCESS WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A LOW POWER LICENSE.
CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50.54 AND 10 CFR 50.47
SUBJECT:
CHANGE TO INTERPRETATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF 50.54(s)(2) AND MAKES-
'AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE PART OF THE PRE 0PERATIONAL INSPECTION PROCESS REASON:
STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSION DIRECTION TO CLARIFY THAT THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD SPECIFIED IN 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) APPLIES TO ALL DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN I
EMERGENCY PLANS AND TO CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN 10 CFR 50.47 FOR AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE i
SCHEDULE:
SECY-81-554 IN REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION:
OCTOBER, 1981 1
+
=,
1
SECY 81-554 FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50, CLARIFICATIONS TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REGULATIONS 50.54(S)(2) "IF THE DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT CORRECTED WITHIN FOUR MONTHS" THERE HAS BEEN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF TilIS PARAGRAPH BY SOME TO MEAN THAT FOUR MONTH PERIOD DOES NOT APPLY T0 SECTION IV, D.3. OF APPENDIX E.
THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD APPLIES TO ANY DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN EMERGENCY PLANS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS.
THERE IS APPARENTLY SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OF COMMISSION'S INTENT REGARDING THE TIMING AND PURPOSE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES.
A NEW SENTENCE WILL BE ADDED TO 50.47 TO SPECIFY THAT AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE IS NOT REQUIRED PRIOR TO A LICENSING BOARD OR APPEAL BOARD DECISION.
NRC/ FEMA INTERACTION FEMA SUPPORT PRIOR TO FORMAL FEMA APPROVAL 0F STATE AND LOCAL PLANS 1.
CP APPLICATIONS:
CONCLUSION ON WHETHER (OR NOT) 0FFSITE IMPEDIMENTS EXIST 2.
OL HEARINGS:
FINDINGS ON OFFSITE PLAN ADEQUACY AND REASONABLE ASSURANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION WITNESSES AND RESPONSES TO CONTENTIONS AND INTERR0GATORIES LOW POWER FINDINGS UNTIL NRC RULE CHANGE 3.
OL DECISIONS:
EVAI_UATION OF FULL PARTICIPATION EXERCISE 14.
OPERATING REACTORS:
EVALUATION OF AN INITIAL EXERCISE WITH OFFSITE PARTICIPATION ONG0ING FEMA SUPPORT 1.
FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT DEFICIErlCIES AS TilEY BECOME KNOWN TO FEMA 2.
EVALUATIONS OF 0FFSITE ASPECTS OF EXERCISES
OTHER RULE CHANGES RELATED TO EMERGENCY. PREPAREDNESS 1
EXTENSION OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM DATE TO FEBRUARY 1, 1982 RELAXATION OF 0FFSITE EXERCISE FREQUENCY EXTENSION OF COMPLETION DATE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES EXTENSION OF RESEARCH REACTOR PLAN SUBMITTAL DATES SIMPLIFY AND CLARIFY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN 50.72 (SECY-81-598)
^
t t
OTHER RULE CHANGES 3
RELATED TO Ef1ERGENCY PREPAREDNESS i
(M) 1 l
?
1
V CHANGE.TO-10 CFR 50 APPENDIX E PROMPT NOTIFICATION SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
SUBJECT:
EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEMS REASON:
TO PROVIDE A REALISTIC DATE FOR PNS IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
PROPOSED REVISION PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 FOR 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD:
CHANGE WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON AD0PTION COMMISSION ACTION:
NOVEMBER, 1981 i
- a
~_.
COMMENTS ON SECY 81-503 EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATION DATE FOR PROMPT PUBLIC NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
~
STERN POSTURE ON' ENFORCEMENT ACTION INCLUDED IN THE RULE IS INAPPROPRIATE AS SOME CAUSES FOR DELAY ARE OUTSIDE THE UTILITIES LLi. TROL.
GPU SERVICE CORPORATION EDISON-ELECTRIC INSTITUTE BOSTON EDISON COMPANY.
KMC, INC.
THE PROPOSED D?.TE OF FEBRUARY 1, 1982 IS AN INSUFFICIENT EXTENSION..
GPU SERVICE CORPORATION BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY WASHINGTON-LEGAL FOUNDATION KMC, INC.
120-DAY PERIOD FOR CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES SHOULD BE REINSTATED FOR DEFICIENCIES DISCOVERED BY A SYSTEM TEST.
KMC, INC.
l-
. THE DEADLINE SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN BECAUSE:
A)
SYSTEMS COULD HAVE BEEN INSTALLED IN TILE M. I. LEWIS, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS B)
NO EFFECTIVE WARNING SYSTEMS ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE ENERGY PEOPLE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS INDIVIDUAL EXTENSIONS SHOULD BF. GRANTED RATHER THAN A BLANKET EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE.
CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX E REQUIREMENTS FOR Et1ERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. EXERCISES
SUBJECT:
REVISION OF FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR JOINT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISES REASON:
RESPONSE TO CHAIRMAN'S DIRECTION AFTER NRC/ FEMA CONSULTATION ON STATE / LOCAL / FEMA IMPACTS SCHEDULE:
STAFF PAPER IN PREPARATION COMMISSION ACTION:
1981 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD
CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50.54 AND 10 CFR 50, APPENDIX E, SECTION IV.E REQUIRED EMERGENCY FACILITIES
SUBJECT:
ADD SPDS TO LIST OF REQUIRED EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES AND PUBLISH IMPLEMENTATION DATE EXTENSION FOR ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FACILITIES REASON:
SPDS WAS OMITTED FROM TMI ACTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
EXTENDED IMPLEMENTATION DATE IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE BURDEN IMPOSED ON LICENSEES BY SCHEDULING 0F EQUIPMENT DELIVERY AND OUTAGES REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION SCHEDULE: IE/NRR STAFF PAPER IN CONCURRENCE COMMISSION ACTION:
1981 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD f
r
CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50.54 REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS
SUBJECT:
EXTENSION OF DATES FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR OPERATORS TO SUBMIT EMERGENCY PLANS REASON:
GUIDANCE FOR RESEARCH AND TEST REACTOR EMERGENCY PLANS NOT YET FINISHED SCHEDULE:
STAFF PAPER IN CONCURRENCE COMMISSION ACTION:
1981 30 DAY COMMENT PERIOD l
=
CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50.54 AND.10 CFR 50.72 REQUIRB1ENTS FOR REPORTING EVENTS AT NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
SUBJECT:
REPORTING REQUIRE l'ENTS FOR OFF-NORMAL CONDITIONS REASON:
SIMPLIFY AND REDUCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULE:
SECY-81-598 IN REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION:
1981 l
.tn,.
pa arc,
u O
RULEMAKING ISSUE Seotemeer u' igR, s m -at-ss4 (Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners From:
Williant J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations l
Subject:
FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50, CLARIFICATIONS l
TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REGULATIONS Purcose:
To obtain Commission approval for publication of a final amendment in the Federal Register.
Catecory:
This paper covers a minor policy matter.
Discussion:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on Ncvember 3,1980 (35 FR 55402).
In 50.54(s)(2) the rule requires that, "For operating power reactors, the licensee, State, and local emergency response plans shall,be implemented by 8
April 1,1981, except as proviced in Section IV,0.3 of Apoendix E of this Part.
If after April 1,1981, the NRC finds that the state of emargency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate prctective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency and if the deficiencies are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor shall ce shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate."
It has come to the staff's attention that because this section of the regulation was written as one paragraph it has been misinterpreted by some to mean that the four-month period for the correction of emergency preparecness deficiencies does not apoly to "Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E."
This is a misinterpretation of the Commission's intent which was that the four-month period is to apoly to any deficiencies identified in the emergency plans.
The staff therefore recommends tha:
50.54(s)(2) be modified to more clearly reflect the Comission's intent.
In addition, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Commissiens intent regarding the timing and purpcse of emergency planning exercises in relation to issuance of full power operating licenses.
The staff has noted that there have been occasions
")(Lb6 OM6hh ik cochian, RES 443-5942'
Tha Commissioners 2
where Licensing Boards have delayed their decisions until an emergency preparedness exercise has been completed. In order to provide clear guidance to the Licensing Boards as to the Comission's intent, a new sentence will be added to 50.47 that will specify that an emergency preparedness exercise is part of the preoperational inspection process and is required prior to the issuance of a full power license but not required for a Licensing Board or Appeal Board decision.
i f
Cost Estimate:
The staff does not anticipate that there will be any costs to the NRC or to licensees associated with the rule changes.
Ricommendation:
That the Comission:
j l..
Approve: The publication of the final rule change in the Federal Register.
1 2.
Note:
a.
That the Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1) states that the rule change is interpretative in nature and is i
therefore being published without advance notice and opportunity for public comment.
b.
That appropriate Congressional comittees will be noti-l fled of the final rule change (draft Congressional letter ~
is Enclosure 2).
c.
That the ACRS is being informed of the rule change..
d.
That, pursuant to 51.51(d)(3) of the Comission's regu-i lations, an environmental impact statement, negative declaration, cr environmental impact appraisal need no:
be prepared in connection with the subject amendments because there is no substantive or significant environ-mental impact.
e.
That this final rule-is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L.96-354, 94 Stat.1164, because the'Comission has determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of proposed rule-making need not be issued and that the rule may be promulgated in final form and become effective on the 4
date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
j f.
That the rule change contains a statement that, pursuant.
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the NRC has made-a preliminary determination that the rule change does not not impose n.ew recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting requirements.
j 1
The Commissioners 3
9 That the staff will directly notify affected applicants, licensees, State governments, and interesteri persons of the rule change.
h.
That a public announcement of the rule change will not be made.
1.
That 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 rescinded 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 Value/ Impact Analysis has been prepared (Enclosure 3).
Sunshine Act:
Recommend consideration at an open meeting.
Scheduling:
For early consideration.
L William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
DISTRIBUTION:
1.
Federal Register Notice of Final Commissioners Rulemaking Commission Staff Offices 2.
Draft Congressional Letter EDO 3.
Value/ Impact Analysis ELD 4
TMI Action Plan Review ACRS Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. October 2, 1981.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT September 25, 1981, 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 comments mcy be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of October 5, 1981.
Please refer to the appropriate weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
l I
JW U
9 3
i 3
k I
)
B I
4 a
ENCLOSURE 1
)
2
?
l-1
)
)
i
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 EMERGENCY PLANNING Agency:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Action:
Final Rule.
Summary: The Commission is making two minor changes to its emergency planning regulations. The two changes are designed to bring the language of the rule into conformity with the Commission's intent at the time of promulgation.
Effective Date:
Upon publication in the Federal Register.
FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael T. Jamgochian, liuman Factors Branch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (telephone 301-443-5942).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on November 3,1980 (45 FR 55402).
In 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), the rule requires that, "For operating power reactors, the licensee, State and local emergency response plans shall be implemented by April 1,1981, except as provided in Section IV,D 3 of Appendix E of this Part.
1 If after April 1,1981, the NRC finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency and if the deficiencies are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate."
It has come to the Commission's attention that because this section of the regulation was written a; one paragraph, it has been misinterpreted by some to 1
[7590-01]
mean that the four-month period for the correction of emergency preparedness deficiencies does not apply to "Section IV,D.3 of Appendix E."
This is a misinterpretation of the Comission's intent which was that the four-month period apply to any deficiencies identified in the emergency plans.
The Comission is therefore modifying 50.54(s)(2) to more clearly reflect that intent.
In addition, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Comission's intent regarding the timing and purpose of emergency planning exercises in relation to issuance df full power operating licenses.
Tre Comission has noted that some Licensing Boards are delaying licensing decisions until an emergency preparedness exercise is completed.
In order to provide clear guidance to the Licensing Boards as to the Comission's intent, a new sentence is being added to 50.47 specifying that an emergency preparedness exercise is part of the preoperational inspection process and is required prior to the issuance of a full power license but not required for a Licensing Board or Appeal Board decision.
Because the changes are interpretative and of a minor nature, simply conforming the rules.to the Comission's intent at the time of promulgation, the Comission finds good cause to dispense with advance notice and opportunity for public coment thereon as unnecessary.
For the same reasons, these changes shall be effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register.
Reculatory Flexibility Act Statement This final rule is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L.96-354, 94 Stat.1164, because the Comission has 2
\\
[7590-0l]
determined pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 that a notice of proposed rulemaking need not be issued and that the rule may be promulgated in final form and become effective on the date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P. L.96-511), the NRC has made a determination that this rule change does not impose new recordkeeping, information collection, or reporting requiremeats.
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, the'following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 are published as documents subject to codification:
Part 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES The authority citation for Part 50 reads as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs.103,104,161,182,189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, 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 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 50.78-50.81 also issued 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. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
5041(1) issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat; 949
~
(42 U.S.C. 2201(1);
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, 3
[7590-01]
q 50.47(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
50.47 Emergency plans.
(a)(1) No operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is mase by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
In making this finding, the NRC considers that the full scale emergency preparedness exercise (required in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section F) is part of the preoperational inspection process and is not required for a Licensing Board, Appeal Board or Commission decision but is only reouired prior to issuance of a full power license.
2.
50.54(s)(2) is revised to read as follows:
50.54 Conditions of licenses.
(2)(1) For operating power reactors, the licensee, State, and local emergency response plans shall be implemented by April 1,1981, except as provided in Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E to this part.
(2)(11) If after April 1,1981, the NRC finds that the state of emergency preparedness does nct provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency (including findinos based on requirements of Appendix E,Section IV,D.3) and if the deficiencies
.(includino deficiencies based on requirements of Apoendix E,Section IV,D.3) are not 4
[7590-01]
corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate.
In determining whether a shutdown or other enforcement action is appropriate, the Commission shall take into account, among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons for,
continued operation.
Dated at this day of 1981.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 5
e s
i n
ENCLOSURE 2 1
I e
i e
I
1 l
Draft Congressional Letter
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee on is a copy of a notice of final rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making two minor changes to its emer-gency planning regulations. The two changes are designed to bring the lan-guage.of the rule into conformity with the Commission's intent at the time of promulgation.
It has come to the Commission's attention that because 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) was written as one paragraph, it has been misinterpreted by some to mean that,the i
four-month period for the correction of emergency preparedness deficiencies does not apply to "Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E."
This is a misinterpretation of the Commission's intent which was that the four-month period apply to any deficiencies identified in the emergency plans.
The Commission is therefore modifying 9 50.54(s)(2) to more clearly. reflect that intent.
In addition, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Commission's intent regarding the timing and purpose of emergency planning exercises in i
relation to issuance of full power operating licenses.
The Commission has noted that some Licensing Boards are delaying licensing decisions until an emergency preparedness exercise is completed.
In order to provide clear guid-ance to the Licensing Boards as to the Commission's intent, a new sentence is being added to 9 50.47 specifying that an emergency preparedness exercise is part of the preoperational inspection process and is required prior to the issuance of a full power license but not required for a Licensing Board or Appeal Board decision.
Because the changes are interpretative and of a minor nature, simply conform-ing the rules to the Commission's intent at the time of promulgation, the Commission finds good cause to dispense with advance notice and opportunity for public comment thereon as unnecessary.
For the same reasons, these changes shall be effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
1.
Federal Register Notice 0
O
(v v:
=
l c
v
[-
1 o
\\
1
)
7 I;
1 3
}-.
s j
x
\\
6 1
O ENCLOSURE 3 3
I Ti
\\.
k s
)
?
l t
4 h'
[
zu-n.
=
VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.
THE ACTION 1.1 Description The Commission is making two minor changes to its emergency planning regu-
'lations.
The two changes to S 50.47 and S 50.54 are designed to bring the le:.guage of the rule into conformity with the Commission's intent at the time of promulgation.
- 1. 2 Ne'ed for the Action On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning regu-lation which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
In 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), the rule requires that, "For operating power reactors, the licensee, State and local emer-gency response plans shall be implemented by April 1, 1981, except as provided in Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E of this Part.
If after April 1, 1981,.the NRC finds that the state of emergency prepared-ness does not provide reasonable assurance that adecuate prctective measures can and will be taken in the event of a raciological emer-gency and if the deficiencies are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Commission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate."
It has come to the Commission's attention that because this section of the regulation was written as one paragraph, it has been misinterpreted by some to mean that the four-month period for the correction of emergency preparedness ceficiencies does not apply to "Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E."
This is a misinterpretation of the Commission's intent which was that the four-month period apply to any deficiencies identified in the emergency plans.
The Commission is therefore modifying 6 50.54(s)(2) to more clearly reflect that intent.
1
-Enclosure 3
In addition, there appears to be'some misunderstanding of the Commission's intent regarding the timing and purpose of emergency planning exercises in relation to issuance of full power operating licenses.
The Commission has noted that some Licensing Boards are delaying licensing decisions until an emergency preparedness exercise is completed.
In order to provide clear guidance to the Licensing Boards as to the Commission's intent, a new sentence is being added to S 50.47 specifying that an emergency preparedness exercise is part of the preoperational inspection process and is required prior to the issuance of a full power license but not required for a Licensing Board or Appeal Board decision.
1.3 Value/ Impact of the Action 4
1.3.1 NRC The changes that are being promulgated are interpretative and of a minor nature, simply conforming the rules to the Commission's intent.
Therefore, the impact of the changes are negligable their value is focused at limiting mis-interpretation and misunderstanding of the August 1980 emergency planning regulations.
1.3.2 Other Government Agencies See 1.3.1.
1.3.3 Industry Licensees will not have to perform an emergency preparedness exercise prior to obtainina Licensing Board decision.
1.3.4 Public See 1.3.1 1.4 Decision on the Action The final rulechange should be published in the Federal' Register.
t 2
^
2.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES Because the changes are interpretative and of a minor nature, no technical alternative has been considered.
3.
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES Potential NRC procedures that could be used to promulgate the action of a rule change include the following:
a.
Proposed Rule change b.
Final Rule change 4.
STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Authority The rule change is intended to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as
- amended, 4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment Sincetherulechangedoesnotrepresentamajoraction,asdefinedby 10 CFR 9 51.5(a)(10), implementation of the rule change does not require 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 To proceed expeditiously with rulemaking.
3
F l
4
?
l 2
I ENCLOSURE 4 e
i s
i e
7 i
l l-1
TMI ACTION PLAN REVIEW The NRC has conducted a review of this final regulation to determine that they satisfy the applicable criteria contained in Task IV.G.2 of the NRC Action i
Plan Developed As A Result Of The TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660, May 1980).
Brierly, those criteria and the NRC's conclusions are as follows:
The regulations are needed:
The Comission is making two minor changes to its emergency planning regulations.
The two changes are designed 4
to bring the language of the rule into conformity with the Comission's intent at the time of promulgation.
2.
The direct and indirect effects of the regulation have been con-sidered:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
In 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2), the rule requires that, "For operating power reactors, the licensee, State and local emergency response plans shall be implemented by April 1, 1981, except as pro-vided in Section IV,D.3 of Appendix E of this Part.
If after April 1, 1981, the NRC finds that the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency and if the deficiencies are not corrected within four months of that finding, the Comission will determine whether the reactor shall be shut down until such deficiencies are remedied or whether other enforcement action is appropriate."
It has come to the Comission's attention that because this section of the regulation was. written as one' paragraph, it has been misinterpreted by some to 1
n
mean that the four-month period for the correction of emergency preparedness deficiencies does not apply to "Section IV,0.3 of Appendix E."
This is a misinterpretation of the Commission's intent which was that the four-month period apply to any deficiencies identified in the emergency plans.
The Commission is therefore modifying 5 50.54(s)(2) to more clearly reflect that intent.
In addition, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the Commission's intentregardingthef.imingandpurposeofemergencyplanningexercisesin relation to issuance of full power operating licenses.
The Commission has noted that some Licensing Boards are delaying licensing decisions until an emergency.
preparedness exercise is completed.
In order to provide clear guidance to the Licensing Boards as to the Commission's intent, a new sentence is being added to 6 50.47 specifying that an emergency preparedness exercise is part of the preoperational inspection process and is required prior to the issuance of a full power license but not required for a Licensing Board or Appeal Board i
decision.
j Because the changes are interpretative and of a minor nature, simply con-forming the rules to the Commission's intent at the time of promulgation,.the Commission finds good cause to dispense with advance notice and opportunity i
for public comment thereon as unnecessary.
For the same reasons, these changes i
have very limited effect and they have been considered in the Value/ Impact l
Analysis.
l-2 L---.-
3.
Alternative approaches hava been considered and the least burdensome 4a of the acceptable alternatives has been chosen:
The alternative approach 4 final rulemaking would be for the Commission to proceed with proposed rulemaking -
the least burdensome has been chosen.
4.
Public comments have been considered and an adequate response has been prepared: The rule changes resulted from industry and public comments.
5.
The regulation is written so that it is understandable to those who must comply with it:
These rule changes satisfy this criterion, particularly in light of its simplicity.
6.
An estimate has been made of the reporting burdens or recordkeeping requirements 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 requirements.
7.
The name, address, and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official has been identified:
See contacts listed in proposed Federal Register notice.
8.
A plan for evaluating the regulation after its issuance has been developed:
Public comments if received, licensee and NRC staff experience, and 3ther inputs will be examined on a periodic basis to determine the effec-tiveness of the rulec k gus e,
3
Based upon the foregoing review of the -...
< regulation, the NRC has preliminarily concluded, as its regulatory analysis, that~this regula-tion satisfies the applicable criteria.
L d
4 4
4
)
A"
\\
~
p aco
{,1m o
%..... #g September 30, 1931 SECY 81-570 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 50 AND TO APPENDIX E:
MODIFICA-TION TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REGULATIONS
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval for publication of a proposed amendment in the Federal Register.
This amendment would eliminate the need to have any findings and determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue an operating license :.uthorizing fuel loading and/or low power operation up to 5% of rated power.
Category:
This paper covers a minor policy matter.
Background:
On August 19, 1980, the NRC published a revised emergency plan-ning regulation which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
In 5 50.47, the rule requires that:
"(a)(1) No operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency prepared-ness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protec-tive measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
(2) The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Age.1cy (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emer-gency plans are adequate and capable of being imple-rrented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented."
When the regulaticn was originally drafted and finally promulgated, there existed an oversight relative to the emergency planning and preparedness licensing requirements for an operating license
Contact:
Mike Jamgcchian, RES 443-5942 (p@,
I@
Tha Commissioners 2
t' authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5%
of rated power), hereafter referred to as " low power license."
t It is apparent to the staff that the emergency preparedness require-i ments for a low power. license need not be as extensive as those i
requirements for a full power operating-license.
On the basis i
of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews over.
the last year, the staff-concludes that a finding as to the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness is not necessary prior to issuing a low power license.'.The staff's position is that j
several factors contribute to a substantial reduction in risk j
and potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to the higher risks'in continuous full power operation.
j -
First, the fission product inventory generated during low power testing is much less than during full power operation due to the
[
lower level of reactor activity and short period of operation.
Second, at low power there is a reduction in the required capacity i
of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal i
occurrence under full power operation.
Third, the time scale for taking actions to mitigate actions is much longer than at full power. The additional time available (at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />)
{
even for a postulated low likelihood sequence which eventually 1
- resulted in release of the fission products accumulated at low power to the containment would allow ad hoc actions to protect j
the public near the site.
Consequently, the staff has determined that the degree of offsite emergency preparedness that is necessary to provide adequate j'
protection of the public health and safety is significantly less than that required for full power operation.
The proposed rule (Enclosure 1) would eliminate the need to have any findings and 4
i determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue a low power license.
The rule l'
makes it clear that only a finding as to.the adequacy of onsite emergency planning and preparedness is required.
The proposed rule would also clarify that any findings and determinati6ns as j
to onsite or offsite emergency preparedness under paragraphs (a)-
1 and (b) of $50.47 are subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)
{
of $50.47, which permit an applicant to show that any deficiencies found are not significant for the plant in question.
1j' Since this eliminates the need to obtain findings from FEMA for l
low power licenses, the staff has consulted with FEMA.
FEMA j
concurs in the staff's approach and in the proposed rule.
It should be noted that the staff proposes to evaluate any deficiencies-which may exist in the onsite emergency plans against
$50.47(b) to determine their relevance to low power operation,
' but would not necessarily complete the preoperational inspection I.
process prior to granting a low power license.
(This is con-sistent with past staff practice where.the onsite appraisal is completed and any significant deficiencies are remedied prior to issuance of a full power license.)
e d
.-.-.4---
,. - -.. - + - -
-e------...
-w-u----_.--
y,
i
. Th]. Commissioners 3
?
Cost Estimate:
The staff does not anticipate that there will be any costs to the NRC or to licensees associated with the proposed rule change.
Recommendation:
That the Commission:
t 1.
Approve:
The publication for public comment of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Enclosure 1) in the Federal Register.
2.
Note:
a.
That appropriate Congressional committees will be noti-fied of the proposed rule change (draft Congressional letter is Enclosure 2).
b.
That the ACRS is being informed of the proposed rule change.
c.
That, pursuant to 9 51.5(d)(3) of the Commission's regula-tions, an environmental impact statement, negative declara-tion, or environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection vi.th the subject amendment because there is no substantive or significant environmental impact.
d.
That the Federal Register notice contains a statement that the NRC certifies 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, 9 605(b).
e.
That the Federal Register notice contains a statement that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the NRC has made a preliminary determination that the rule change does not impose new recordkeeping, information collec-tion, or reporting requirements.
f.
That the staff will directly notify affected applicants, licensees, State governments, and interested persons of the proposed rule change.
g.
That a public announcement of the proposed rule change will not be made.
h.
That a preliminary Value/ Impact Analysis has been pre-pared (Enclosure 3).
i.
That 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 rescinded on February 17, 1981, by Executive Order 12291 (see memo-randum dated February 27, 1981, from L. Bickwit, General Counsel to the Commission).
This approach is proposed 4
Th2 Commissioners 4
as an interim procedure until the Commission decides what to do in response to Executive Order 12291.
Sunshine Act:
Recommend consideration at an open meeting.
' Scheduling:
For early consideration.
h cNMI /.h
. <._ C William 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 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b Thursday, October 15, 1981.
Commission Staff'0ffice comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT October 7,1981, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it rcquires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be appraised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the week of October 19, 1981.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices E00 ELD ACRS ASLBP Secretariat I
I
W O
ENCLOSURE 1
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E Emergency 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 to clarify that, for issuance of operating licensees author-izing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power),
findings and determinations on the state of offsite emergency prepared-ness shall not be necessary.
DATES:
Comment period expires
- Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practicnl +o 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 Bri.nch.
Copies of comments received by the Commis-sion may be examined in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
j
^ Insert date 30 days after publication in Federal Register.
1
[759001]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Jamgochian, Human Factors 3 ranch, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-443-5942).
4 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
I.
The Proposed Rule On August 19,1980,-the Nuclear Regulatory Comission published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on Novem-4 ber3,1980(45FR55402).
In 5 50.47, the rule requires that:
"(a)(1) No operating license for a nuclear power reactor I
will.be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state-of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reason-able assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
1 (2) The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and deter-i i
minations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented."
l When the regulation was originally drafted and finally promulgated, i
there existed an oversight relative to the emergency planning and prepared-ness licensing requirements for an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), hereafter referred to as " low power license."
It is apparent to the Commission that the emergency preparedness requirements for a low power license need 7
I not be as extensive as those requirements in a full power operating license.
On the basis of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews l
over the last year, the Commission concludes that a finding as to the adequacy 4
of offsite emergency preparedness is not necessary prior to issuing a 2
[7590-01]
low power license. The Commission's position is that several factors contri-bute to a substantial reduction in risk and potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to the higher risks in continuous full power operation.
First, the fission product inventory generated during lov power testing is much less than during full power operation due to the lower level of reactor activity and short period of operation.
- Second, at low power there is a reduction in the required capacity of systems.
designed to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal occurrence under full power operation. Third, the time scale for taking actions to mitigate actions is much longer than at full power.
The additional time available-(at.least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />) even for a postulated low likelihood sequence which eventually resulted in release of the fission products accumulated at low power to the containment would allow ad hoc actions tb protect the public near the site.
Consequently, the Commission has determined that the degree of offsite emergency preparedness that is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health'and safety is significantly less than that required for full power operation. The proposed rule (Enclosure 1) would eliminate the need to have any findings and detenninations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue a low power. license.
The proposed rule change makes it clear that only a finding as to the adeq Jacy of onsite emergency planning and preparedness is required. The proposed rule changes would also clarify that any findings and determina-tions as to onsite or offsite emergency preparedness under paragraphs (a) and (b) of $ 50.47 are subject to the provisions of paragraph (c) of 5 50.47, which permit an applicant to show that any deficiencies found are not significant for the plant in question.
3
[7590-01]-
Since this eliminates the need to obtain findings from FEMA for low power licenses, the Commission has consulted with FEMA.
FEMA concurs in this approach and in the proposed rule.
It should be noted that the staff proposes to evaluate any deficiencies which may exist in the onsite emergency plans against the standards in 650.47(b) and Appendix E to determine their relevance to low power operation, but would not necessarily complete the preoperational inspection process prior to granting a low power license.
(This is consistent with past staff practice where the onsite appraisal is completed and any significant deficiencies are.emedied prior to issuance of a full power license.)
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
S 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule changes concern a clarification of the prequisite elements and findings necessary for the issuance of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and low power operations (up to 5% of rated power) for nuclear power plants licensed pursuant to i
Section 103 and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
SS 2133, 2134b.
The electric utility companies owning and operating these nuclear power 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. S 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121.
Accordingly, there is no significant economic 1
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
l 4
I
[7590-01]
. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Pursuant-to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L.96-511), the NRC has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule does not impose new recordkeeping, information 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 that adoption of the i
following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, is contemplated.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 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, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2123, 2201, 2232, 2233, J
2239); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1243, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise noted.
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Section 50.78-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sec-i tions 50.100-50.102 issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
i For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22/3),
S 50.41(i) issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat. 949 (42 U.S.C. 2201(i));
SS 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.
5
[7590-01]
1.
In 6 50.47, introductory text is added to paragraph (a), the introductory text to paragraph (b) is revised, paragraph (c)(1) is also revised, and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
6 50.47 Emergency plans.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) below:
(1) ***
(2) ***
(b) The onsite and, where necessary under subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, offsite emergency response plans for nuclear reac-tors must meet the following standards:
a (c)(1) Failure to meet the standards set forth paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection may result in the Commission declining to issue an Operating License; however, the applicant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in questien, that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to rcrm.it plant operation.
(d) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, no findings and determinations on the state of offsite emergency preparedness or on the adequacy and capability to implement State and local emergency plans are necessary in order for the NRC to issue an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low power operations (up to 5% of the rated power).
Insofar as emergency planning and preparedness requirements are concerned, a license authorizing fuel 6'
. Enclosure 1
[7590-01]
loading and/or low power operation may be issued after a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides rea-sonable assurance that adequate onsite protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
The NRC will base this finding on its assessment of the applicant's onsite emergency plans.
An applicant's compliance with the standards set forth in paragraph (b) above and Appendix E of this part concerning offsite emergency planning and preparedness need not be reviewed prior to the issuance of a~n operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low power' operation up to 5%
~
of rated power.
2.
S'50.54 (q) is revised to read as follows:
9 E0.54 Conditions of licenses.
(q) A licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the applicable standards in S 50.47(b) and the applicable require-ments in Appendix E of this part.
A licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a research reactor or a fuel facility shall follow and maintain ir effect emergency plans which meet the requirements in Appen-dix E of this part.
The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if such changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, con-tinue to meet the applicable standards of 9 50.47(b) and the applicable i
requirements of Appendix E of this part.
The research reactor licensee i
and/or the fuel facility licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if such changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the requirements of 7
[7590-01]
Appendix E of this part.
Proposed changes that decrease the effective-ness of the approved emergency plans shall not be implemented without application to and approval by the Commission.
The licensee shall furnish 3 copies of each proposed change for approval; and/or if a change is made without prior approval, 3 copies shall be. submitted within 30 days after the change is made or proposed to the Director of the appropriate NRC regional office specified in Appendix 0, 10 CFR Part 20, with 10 copies to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or, if appropriate, the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safe-guards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
3.
Section I of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 is revised to read as follows:
I.
Introduction.
Each applicant for a construction permit is required by S 50.34(a) to include in the preliminary safety analysis report a discussion of f'
preliminary plans for coping with emergencies.
Each applicant for an f
operating license is required by 9 50.34(b) to include in the final safety analysis report plans for coping with emergencies.
This appendix establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness.
These plans shall be described generally in the preliminary safety anal-ysis report and submitted as a part of the final safety analysis report.
The potential radiological hazards to the public associated with i
the operation of research and test reactors and fuel facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 involve considerations different than those 8
[7590-01]
associated with nuclear power reactors.
Consequently, the size of Emer-gency Planning Zones 2 (EPZs) for facilitie; ither *,han power reactors and the degree to which compliance with the requirements of this Sec-tion and Sections II, III, IV, and V as necessary will be determined on a case-by-case basis.3 ~
Nothwithstanding the above paragraphs, in the case of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and/or low power operations up to 5% of rated power, no findings or determinations need be made on an appli-cant's compliance with those provisions of this appendix concerning off-site emergency planning and preparedness prior to the issuance of such a license, pursuant to the provisions of 6 50.47.
Dated at this day of
, 1981.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission i
F 9
dy,-
Q}
%R V-W
]
j.
i L
5 2
2 4
5 k
ENCLOSURE 2 a
i 84 se
1 i
1 DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information 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 to clarify that, for issuance of operating licensees authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), findings and determinations on the stat of offsite emergency preparedness shall not be necessary.
When the regulation was originally drafted and finally promulgated, there existed an oversight relative to the emergency preparedness licensing requirements for an operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), hereafter referred to as " low power license."
It is apparent to the staff that the emergency preparedness requirements for a low power license need not be as extensive as those requirements for a full power operating license.
On the basis of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews over the last year, the staff concludes that a finding as to the adequacy of offsite 4
emergency preparedness is not necessary prior to issuing a low power license.
The staff's position is based on the rationale that several factors contribute to a substantial reduction in risk and potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to continuous full power operation.
First, there_is additional time available for the operators to correct the loss of important safety systems needed to mitigate relatively high risk events, or to take alter-nate courses of action, for example, even. if all coolant were lost to the core 1
1 after extended low power operation (5%-), the resultant heat up of the fuel to melting point would take approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
Second, the fission product inventory during this time would be very much less than during full power opera-tion.
Third, at low power, there is a reduction in the required capacity of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal occurrence under full power operating conditions.
Consequently, the staff has determined that the degree of offsite emergency preparedness that is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety is significantly less than that required for full power operation.
The proposed rule (Enclosure 1) would eliminate the need to have any findings and determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue a low power license.
The rule makes it clear that only a finding as to the adequacy of onsite emergency planning and preparedness is required.
Sincerely, Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Nuc, lear Regulatory Research
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2
c_
l.
l t
1 3
f I
a 2
h ENCL 0SURE 3 2
e Q
h' 1
i 5
k
A.
p VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.
THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 Description
, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend-its regulations to clarify that, for issuance of operating licensees authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), findings and determinations on the state of offsite emergency preparedness shall not be necessary.
- 1. 2 Need for the Proposed Action On August 19, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 554J2).
In S 50.47, the rule requires that,
"(a)(1) No operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
(2) The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings ano deter-minations as to whether State and local emergency plans are j
adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC t-assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency 1
plans are adequate and capable of being implemented."
When the regulation was originally drafted and finally promulgated, there existed an oversight relative to the emergency preparedness licensing requirements l
1 1
for an operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), hereafter referred to as " low power license."
It is apparent to the Commission that the emergency preparedness requirements for a low power license need not be as extensive as those requirements in a full power operating license.
On the basis of the experience gained in emergency prepared-ness reviews over the last year, the staff concludes that a finding as to the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness is not necessary prior to issuing a low power license.
The staff's position is based on the rationale that several l
factors contribute to a substantial raduction in risk and potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to continuous full power operation.
First, there is additional time available for the operators to correct the loss of important safety systems needed to mitigate relatively high risk events, or to take alternate courses of action, for example, even if all coolant were lost to the core after extended low power operation (5%), the resultant heat up of the fuel to melting point would take approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
Second, the fission product inventory during this time would be very much less than during full power operation.
Third, at low power, there is a reduction in the required capacity of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal occurrence under full power operating conditions.
Consequently, the staff has determined that the degree of offsite emergency preparedness that is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety is significantly less than that required for full power opera-tion.
The proposed rule (Enclosure 1) would eliminate the need to have any findings and determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue a low power license.
The rule makes it clear l
that only a finding as to the adequacy of onsite emergency planning and preparedness is required.
2
-l
- 1. 3 Value/ Impact of the Action 1.3.1 NRC The changes that are being proposed will permit issuing operating licenses for fuel loading and low power operation without obtaining a finding and deter-mination relative to offsite emergency preparedness.
The impact and value is negligible relative to the NRC.
1.3.2 Other Government Agencies This proposed regulation would permit State and local governments and licensees to not obtain FEMA findings and determinations relative to offsite emergency preparedness prior to NRC authorizing low power operation.
1.3.3 Industry See 1.3.2 above.
1.3.4 Public Because there would be no offiste consequences resulting in an accident during low power operation the proposed regulation will have negligible effect on the public.
1.4 Decision on the Actiin The proposed rule change should be published in the Federal Register.
3
2.
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES Because the proposed changes are of a minor nature, no technical alternative has been considered.
3.
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES Potential NRC procedures that could be used to promulgate the action of a rule change include the following:
a.
Proposed rule change b.
Final rule change
- 4. - STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 NRC Authority The rule change is intended to implement the Atomic Energy Act of 1957 as amended.
4.2 Need for NEPA Assessment Since the proposed rule change does not represent a major action, as defined by 10 CFR S 51.5(a)(10), implementation of the proposed rule changes do not require a NEPA assessment.
4
5.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSED REGULATIONS OR POLICY These proposed rule changes relate to the NRC emergency preparedness regula-tions, Regulatory Guide 1.101 and NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1.
6.
SUMARY AND CONCLUSIONS To proceed expeditiously with rulemaking.
4 s
s l
5
i b
o d
E ri c L O S U R E 4 e
3 I
TMI ACTION PLAN REVIEW The NRC has conducted a review of this final 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 conclusions are as follows:
.1.
The regulations are needed:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission'is proposing to amend its regulations to-clarify that, for issuance of operating licensees authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), findings and determinations on the state of offsite emergency preparedness shall not be necessary.
2.
The direct and indirect effects of the regulation have been considered:
On August 19, 1980, the Nuclear. Regulatory Commission published a revised emergency planning regulation which became effective on November 3, 1980 (45 FR 55402).
In 9 50.47, the rule requires that,
"(a)(1) No operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
(2) The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). findings and deter-minations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented, and on the NRC.
assessment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented."
1
When the regulation was originally drafted and finally promulgated, there existed an oversight relative to the emergency preparedness licensing require-ments for an operating license authorizing fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power), hereafter referred to as " low power license."
It is apparent to the Commission that the emergency preparedness requirements for a low power license need not be as extensive as those requirements in a full power operating ifcense.
On the basis of the experience gained in emergency preparedness reviews over the last year, the staff concludes that a finding as to the adequacy of offsite emergency preparedness is not necessary prior to issuing a low power license.
The staff's position is based on the rationale that several factors contribute to a substantial reduction in risk and potential accident consequences for low power testing as compared to continuous full power operation.
First, there is additional time available for the operators to correct the loss of important safety systems needed to mitigate relatively high risk events, or to take alternate courses of action, for example, even if all coolant were lost to the core after extended low power operation (5%), the resultant heat up of the fuel to melting point would take approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
Second, the fission product inventory during this time would be very much less than during full power operation.
Third, at low power, there is a reduction in the required capacity of systems designed to mitigate the consequences of an abnormal occurrence under full power operating conditions.
Consequently, the staff has determined that the degree of offsite emergency
~
preparedness that is necessary to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety is significantly less than that required for full power opera-tion.
The proposed rule (Enclosure 1) would eliminate the need to have any findings and determinations on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning and preparedness in order to issue a low power license.
The rule makes it clear 2
that only a finding as to the adequacy of onsite emergency planning and prepared-ness is required.
3.
Alternative approaches 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 proceed with final rulemaking - the least burdensome has been chosen.
4.
Public comments have been considered and an adequate response has been prepared:
The proposed rule changes are requesting public comments.
5.
The regulation is written so that it is understandable to those who must comply with it:
These rule changes satisfy this criterion, particularly in light of its simplicity.
6.
An estimate has b'een made of the reporting burdens or recordkeeping requirements 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 recc-dkeeping requirements.
7.
The name, address, and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official has been identified:
See contacts listed in proposed Federal Register notice.
8.
A plan evaluating the regulation after its issuance has been developed:
Public comments if received, licensee and NRC staff experience, and other inputs will be examined prior to developing a final regulation.
3
Based upon the foregoing review of the proposed regulation, the NRC has preliminarily concluded, as its regulatory analysis, that this regulation satisfies-the applicable criteria.
j i
i 1
i:
i i
T 4
t i
1-4
-=
1SMhMQ(GMM0setSM&M&0t0tenMMMMSMMMM TRANSMITTAL TO:
M Document Control Desk,
.P 016 Phillips C@
ADVANCED COPY TO:
O The Public Document Room h
g DATE:
$g November 2, 1981 m
Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/.
h are being forwarded for entry on the Daily AccessionThey p
List and placement in the Public Document Room.
F other distribution is requested or required.
Q No Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual g
documents wherever possible.
pg 5
p 1.
Transcript of:
Briefing on Amendments to Part 50 --
Emergency Preparedness Regulations.
(1 copy)
October 30, 1981.
V>
p-Q Vugraphs presented at above meeting. (1 copy) g a.
%a b.
SECY-81-554 - Rulemaking Issue paper, dated b
c Sept. 17. 81, Subj:
Final Amendment to 10 CFR h
Part 50, Clarifications to Emergency Preparedness k
Regulations.
(1 copy)
SECY-81-570, Rulemaking Issue paper, c.
Dated Sept. 30. 81, Subj:
Part 50 and to Appendix E: Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR Modification to 6
Emergency Preparedness Regulations.
(1 copy) g jqke_
own i
Office of the Secretary D
e m'
1 a wea as
"=e p h
w R$FMPJ9WPPPPd9W0WWWdWPPPPPPPM0V#
-