ML20042C760
| ML20042C760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/14/1983 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D485 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-RINV, TASK-SE SECY-83-064, NUDOCS 8302280084 | |
| Download: ML20042C760 (32) | |
Text
ho
,/p CEcqs,.
February 14, 1983 3,,,
j SEcY-83-64
\\,...../
RULEMAKING ISSUE FOR:
The Commissior(dhkOtation Vote)
FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
10 CFR PART 140: PROPOSED RULF TO REVISE THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF AN EXTPAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE PURPOSE:
To obtain Commission approval for publication of the subject proposed rule in the Federal Reaister.
CATEG0RY:
This paper covers a major policy matter.
DISCUSSION:
When the Commission determines that a nuclear incident is an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" (EN0), the Price-Anderson Act provides for a systein which is similar in some respects to a "no-fault" recovery scheme.
The main purpose of the system is that members of the public injured by a nuclear incident will not be subjected to a series of substantive and procedural hurdles which would prevent speedy satisfaction of legitimate claims.
The significance of the EN0 concept is that a positive deter-mination that an EN0 has taken place must be made by the Commission before the " waiver of defenses" provisions of the Act can apply to the accident.
In the event of a " nuclear incident" that is declared not to be an EN0, Price-Anderson funds are still available.
Normal defenses available under State law, such as contributory negligence, and reduced statutes of limitation periods, are not waived if no EN0 is declared.
The insurance pools may dispense funds under their policies, whether or not there is an ENO determination by the Commission as was done in the Three Mile Island situation.
Claimants would have to prove " damages" whether or not there was an affirmative EN0 determination.
CONTACT:
H. T. Peterson, RES 427-4210
[.k t
g3022 9Do 8% 3 (f
+
_ _m -
The Commissioners 2
In the event of an ENO the licensee would waive certain State 4
legal defenses (contributory negligence, assumption of risk, statutes of limitation shorter than 20 years, etc.). This creates a situation for the licensee similar to those of '? strict liability."- Strict liability would reduce or remove many of the defenses listed above on the grounds that the operator knew he was operating a potentially hazardous activity and should have taken steps to avoid the accident.
When Congress was originally considering waivers of defenses in 1966, insurers feared that under such a waiver system they'would be subjected to " nuisance suits" filed by people living near a site who may develop cancer or otherwise be injured. The insurance industry felt that.it should not be required to waive defenses normally available to it for minor accidents or " nuisance suits." The extraordinary nuclear occurrence provides a threshold j
for initiating the waivers of defenses, j
The accident at the Three Mile ~ Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, on March 28,1979. uncovered problems in applying the existing-EN0 criteria in 10 CFR 140.84 and 140.85. The principal problem that the Commission found was that monetary damages, other than those directly associated with evacuaticn, could only be as-certained after extended litigation.
The proposed revised damage criterion overcomes this deficiency by relying on things that can be readily~ counted or evaluated within a short time following a nuclear accident, e.g., number of unemployed, number of people evacuated or the tax value of property.
The proposed criteria also replace the need for clinical evaluations of personal injury with dose criteria.
Like the present criteria, the proposed criteria represent administrative criteria for use by the Commission in a legal de".ision following an accident and do not represent allowable or safe limits for use by licensees.
l The proposed 5 rem whole body dose criterion for substantial l
releases was selected to be consistent with proposed protective Action Guides of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
This indicates that any accident which was serious enough to have required Protective Actions.would l
l exceed the criteria for substantial offsite releases.
It should l
be noted that the ENO decision is retrospective (after radiation doses have occurred); whereas a decision on whether to initiate l
protective action is prospective (prior' to the dose being delivered).
The existing EN0 criteria were based, in part, on older Protective t
l Action Guides issued by the former Federal Radiation Council.
i
--a--
,_,.u,____m,-
~.
v-,,,,.,.,,
..v.
w,..
yy,
,m, y
., _.,,,y.,,
..m...,,,,
' The Comissioners 3
The Commission's proposed Reactor Safety Goal gives a risk-equivalent dose less than the proposed 5-rem criterion. The Reactor ae a
as an assodated M of cancer dean M 1.9x10-6/ year (NUREG-0880, page 23).
For a 30-year re operating lifetime, this gives a total risk of 5.7x10 gctor whi h is equivalent to a 0.57 rem dose using a radiation risk of 101g/ rem.
It is, in our view, appropriate to have a safety design goal which is lower than the level which is an indicator of " substantial releases" of radioactive materials. The proposed dose criterion for substantial offsite releases represents a factor of 4 reduction from the presert criterion.
However, the 5-rem dose is still
" substantial" in the sense that approximately 99.8 percent of the doses arising from substantial
- accidents and approximately 98 percent of the doses arising from a major accident sequence
- would be below 5-rem.
These cases characterize the upper range of accident consequences.
The 5-rem criterion is lower than the 25-rem dose defined in the present reactor siting criteria in 10 CFR Part 100.
- However, the 10 CFR Part 100 25-rem dose is used to define site distance parameters and, as noted in the footnote to 5100.11, it does not constitute an acceptable limit for emergency doses to the public under accident conditions.
Therefore, direct comparison of the Part 100 value and the proposed EN0 criterion for offsite releases is not valid. is a Federal Register notice of a proposed rule that would revise the present criteria for the determination of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence.
The notice explains the present criteria, the problems encountered in their application, and the proposed changes to the criteria.
This notice resolves the petition of the Public Interest Litigation Group - Critical Mass Energy Project which requested re-examination of the EN0 criteria.
The proposed ENO criteria are consistent with the current statutory definition of an ENO. No reasonable change under the current EN0 definition could be made which would make the Three Mile Island accident an ENO.
A legislative change modifying or eliminating the statutory definition of an ENO could accomplish this.
We have not proposed specific legislation because rule-making appears to be the most expeditious method of resolving l
the petition.
oThe accicent designations refer to the cases SST-2 and SST-1, used in the reactor accident Siting Source Term Study, NUREG-0773 " Reactor Accident Source Tems:
Design and Siting Perspectives" (in press) i
The Commissioners 4
RESOURCES:
Implementation of the proposed rule will not require additional resources.
1 RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1) to change the EN0 criteria in Parts 140.84 and 140.85 and thereby resolve petition PRM 140-1, 2.
Certify for the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is included in the enclosed Federal Register notice.
3.
Note:
a.
The notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1) will i
be published in the Federal Register and 60 days will be allowed for public comment.
b.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification made under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
j 605(b)) and the reasons for it.
c.
The proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.96-511).
d.
Under 551.5(d) of 10 CFR Part 51, neither an environ-mental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared because the proposed amendment will not significantly affect the quality of the environment, e.
A full regulatory analysis has not been prepared as none of the criteria in SECY-82-187 is met by this rul e.
However, a short regulatory analysis is made of alternatives to the proposed action and included as.
The negligible impact on industry is also discussed in Part III of the Federal Register notice.
1 l
The Comissioners 5
f.
The appropriate congressional comittees will be notified (Enclosure 3).
g.
A public announcement will be issued (Enclosure 4).
h.
The Federal Register notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be distributed to the petitioner,10 CFR Part 50 licensees, to insurance pools, and to public interest groups.
SCHEDULING:
No. Specific circumstance is known to staff.which would s
require Comission action by any particular date in the near term.
/
r h
L William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations-I Enclosures.
1.
Draft Federal Register Notice 2.
Regulatory Analysis 3.
Draft Congressional Letter 4.
Draft Public Announcement Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, March 2, 1983.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 23, 1983, 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.
j Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
l DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLAP ASLBP SECY
. ~..
,, _. _. ~...... _
(7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 140 Criteria for an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission..
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC).is considering amending its regulations to revise the criteria for an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" (EN0).
If a nuclear incident were found by the Comission to be an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence," persons with claims for injuries or damages need.not prove that the licensee or other. responsible' parties were negligent.
The proposed changes in thelEN0 criteria will.
reduce the problems encountered by the Comission in applyin'g the existing' criteria after the accident at Three Mile. Island nuclear plant (TMI).
These proposed changes will affect applicants for and holders of NRC licenses for production facilities and utilization facilities and' i
other persons indemnified as to such facilities.
DATE: The coment period expires on Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, i
but assurance of consideration cannot be given unless the comments are filed on or before l
ADDRESSEES:
All interested persons who desire to submit written comments or suggestions in connection with this proposed rule should send them to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service. Branch.
Copies of all documents received may be examined and copied in the Comission's Public Document' Room at 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC.
i i
(7590-01)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
H. T. Petersoa, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 427-4210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Background
In the event of a nuclear incident, claims for injuries or damages can be brought against the plant licensee and other parties considered responsible for the incident.
The Price-Anderson provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, (Section-170) provide a system of private insurance, electric utility funds, and government indemnity totaling $560 million to pay public liability claims. One of the principal obstacles to a claimant's recovery for injuries or damages could be the necessity for the claimant to prove negligence on the part of the defendants.
Congress attempted to remove this obstacle in 1966 by amending the Price-Anderson Act to introduce the closely related concepts of extraordinary nuclear occurrence and waiver of defenses.
When the Commission determines that a nuclear incident is an " extra-ordinary nuclear occurrence" within the meaning of the Act and the 1
Commission's regulations, the waiver of defenses provisions contained in the insurance policies and indemnity agreements implementing the Price-I Anderson system are activated.
When the Commission has determined that an END has occurred, any indemnified defendant must waive (Section i
170n(l) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended):
2
(7590-01)
(i)
Any issue or defense as to the conduct of the claimant i
or fault of persons indemnified, (ii) any issue or defense, as to charitable or governmental immunity, and (iii) any issue or defense based on any statute of limitation if suit is instituted within three years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event more than twenty years after the date of the nuclear incident.
i Whether or not an ENO is declared, however, a claimant would still have l
to prove:
(a) personal injury or damage, (b) monetary amount of loss, l
l and (c) the causal link between his loss and the radioactive material j
released. When applicable, the waivers of defenses provisions relieve the claimant of having to prove negligence by any defendant and of having to disprove defenses such as contributory negligence.
i l
The term " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" is defined by Section ll(j) of the Atomic Energy Act as follows:
The term " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" means any event causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material from its intended place of confinement in amounts offsite, or causing radiation levels offsite, which the Commission determines to be substantial, and which the Commission determines has resulted or probably will result in substantial damages to persons offsite or property offsite.
The ENO definition thus provides a two-pronged test:
(a) substantial offsite release or substantial offsite radiation, and (b) actual or prospective substantial offsite damages.
This section also requires the Commission to " establish criteria in writing" for application of these tests to specific events.
3 l
(7590-01)
^
The Commission's existing criteria were established in 1968 (33 FR 15998) and are found in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 140, Sections 140.84 and 140.85.
For the Commission to determine that there has been an ENO, both Criterion I and Criterion II must be met.
The language of the criteria, especially Criterion I, is rather technical and precise.
Criterion I relates to whether there has been a substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactive material offsite, or that there has been a substantial level of radiation offsite.
Criterion I calls for'this finding when radioactive material is released from its intended place of confinement or radiation levels occur offsite and either of the following findings are also made:
a.
That one or more persons offsite were, could have been, or might be exposed to radiation or to radioactive material, resulting in a dose or in a projected dose in excess of one of the levels in the following table:
TABLE I - TOTAL PROJECTED RADIATION DOSES Critical Organ Dose (rems)
Thyroid 30 Whole body 20 Bone Marrow 20 Skin 60 Other organs or tissues 30 In measuring or projecting doses, exposures from the following types of radiation shall be included.
(1)
Radiation from sources external to the body; (2)
Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from air or water; and (3) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from food or from land surfaces.
4
(7590-01) pr_
b.
(1)
As the result of a release of radioactive material from a reactor there is at least a total of any 100 square j
meters of offsite property that has surface contamination, i
This contamination must show levels of radiation in excess of one of the values listed in column 1 or column 2 of the following table, or_
(2) As the result of a release of radioactive material in the course of transportation surface contamination of any
'l offsite property has occurred.
The contamination must show levels of radiation in excess of the values listed in column 2 of the following table, j
TABLE II.
TOTAL SURFACE CONTAMINATION LEVELS
- Column 1 Column 2 Utility's property beyond Type of the fence surrounding the Other offsite emitter reactor station.
property i
Alpha emission 3.5 microcuries per square 0.35 microcuries from transuranic meter per square meter isotopes Aloha emission 35 microcuries per square 3.5 microcuries from isotopes meter per square meter other than trans uranic isotopes Beta or gamma 40 millirads/ hour at 4 millirads/ hour emission 1 cm. (measured through at 1 cm. (measured not more than 7 milligrams throu'gh not more per square centimeter of than 7 milligrams i
total absorber) per square centimeter of total absorber)
"The maximum levels (above background), observed or projected, 8 or more hours after initial deposition.
l If Criterion I is satisfied, Criterion II must then be epplied.
Criterion II is satisfied if any of the following findings is made:
(1) The event has resulted in the death or hospitalization, l
within 30 days of the event, of five or more people located offsite showing objective clinical evidence of physical 5
(7590-01)
]
i l.
I injury from exposure to the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of the-reactor's source, special l
nuclear, or byproduct material; or_
l (2) $2,500,000 or more of damage offsite has been or will probably be sustained by 'any one person, or $5 million or more of such damage in total has been or will probably be sustained, as the result of such event; or_
(3) The Conunission finds that $5,000 or more of: damage offsite has been or will probably be sustained by each of 50 or more persons, provided that $1 million or more of such damage in total has been or will probably be sustained,- as the result of i
such events.
l The term " damage" refers to damage arising out of or resulting from the 1
radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties'of the reactor's source, special nuclear, or byproduct material, and shall be based upon estimates of one or more of the following:
l l
l (1) Total cost necessary to put affected property back into use, (2) Loss of use of affected property, (3) Value of affected property where not practical-- to restore to j
- use, (4) Financial loss resulting from protective actions such as evacuation appropriate to reduce or avoid. exposure to radiation or to radioactive materials.
l II.
Problems in Application The accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, on March 28, 1979 uncovered proolems in applying the existing ENO criteria in 10 CFR 140.84 and 140.85.
The Commission's determination that the accident at TMI was not an." extraordinary nuclear occurrence" was published in the Federal Register of April 23,1980(45FR27590).
This determination was based in part on NRC staff report NUREG-0637,
" Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the-Staff Panel on the l
Comission's Determination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (EN0)"
6 L
.~-
il.
l (7590-01) l t
i dated January 1980.
This report is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room at the above address or may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
t Basically, the problems with the existing ENO criteria are:
1.
The ENO criteria for " substantial releases" need to be re-examined because of downward revisions to the Guides for Protective Action which partially provided the bases for the original ENO.
l 2.
The current Criterion II for " substantial injury" requires l
objective clinical evidence of radiation injury.
Tests for such injury are not conclusive nor unique.
Psycholcgical stress can manifest some physical sysmptoms similar to those associated with acute radiation injury, therefore, they may not be useful.
3.
Monetary damages in Criterion II were difficult to evaluate.
In the ENO detemination for the Three Mile Island Accident, costs such l
as evacuation payments were tabulated, but many damages such as diminution of property values and business losses required court adjudication before the proper compensation could be awarded, f
l Prooosed Criteria l
The Commission notes that the statutory definition of an "extraor-l dinary nuclear occurrence" in section ll(j) of the AEA requires EN0 criteria that reflect two conditions:
substantial discharge or dispersal 7
(7590-01) of radioactive materials and substantial dam:ges.
Like the criteria they would replace, the proposed criteria are dual and require two separate determinations.
h ever, the proposed criteria seek to over-come the problems encountered in applying the present criteria for
" substantial damages." The proposed criteria focus on things that can be readily counted or estimated within a relatively short time following an accident.
Like the present criteria, the proposed criteria represent administrative criteria for use by the Commission in a legal decision following an accident and do not represent allowable or safe limits for use by licensees.
Criterion I is a mechanism for determining that a substantial release of radioactive material or radiation offsite has occurred.
Currently Criterion I is a 20 rem whole body dose to one person offsite with higher values for specific organs.
The proposed criterion would lower these levels to 5 rem whole body dose and corresponding organ doses.
This proposed criterion has been selected to be numerically i
equivalent to the Protective Action Guides proposed by the Environmental ProtectionAgency1/andthoseissuedbytheFoodandDrugAdministration/.
2 This ensures that any nuclear accident which was serious enough to have warranted protective actions will be found to constitute substantial releases of radioactive materials and will trigger the ENO determination.
j i
I/ nvironmental Protection Agency, " Manual of Protective' Action Guides E
and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents" EPA Report EPA-520/1-75-001 (Revised July 1979).
l 2_/ ood and Drug Administration " Accidental Radioactive Contamination of F
Human Food and Animal Feeds; Recommendations for State and Local Agencies," FEDERAL REGISTER of October 22, 1982 (47 FR 47073).
i 8
l l'
(7590-01)
The language of Criterion I would be clarified, replacing the words
... one or more persons offsite were, could have been or might be exposed..." with the proposed words "... one or more of the persons offsite were or will probably be exposed..."
In-the interest of-representing the most conservative-case the NRC staff used a scenario where a hypothetical person at TMI would have had to follow the radioactive plume in a boat during the duration of the release in order to satisfy the "could have been" or "might be" conditions.
The proposed criterion is more reasonable and workable.
t The surface contamination levels in Criterion I will not be changed as the levels are consistent with proposed emergency response levels.
The existing procedures in 5140.84(b) are inexpensive, and can be performed rapidly.
Although more sophisticated measurement techniques are available
\\
and specific radionuclide levels could be measured, the existing simpler tests provide adequate indication of contamination levels for an EN0 determination.
Criterion II, which defines substantial damages, would be changed extensively.
In lieu of the present criteria based upon the total monetary worth of damages or clinical evidence of radiation injury, the proposed Criterion II for the amount of damages represents items for which information is readily available within the time frame for an ENO determination (90 days).
For each of the monetary requirements,- the total valuation is assumed to be equivalent to a loss of $2.5 million.
This value is in the present ENO criterion as the amount of loss to a single individual which would constitute an ENO.
The Commission no 9
i
.... _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _,..._.._.._.___... _. _
(7590-01) longer believes it necessary to specify different amounts of monetary damages depending upon the number of people affected.
Proposed Criterion II (1) accounts for human injury.
This criterion presents a table of exposures according to numbers of persons exposed.
The higher exposure levels take into account promptly manifested radiation injury; the lower levels to larger numbers of people take into account possible latent effects of radiation such as cancer.
The highest level uses a 100 rem radiation dose to 5 or more people as an indication of
" substantial injury" rather than requiring " objective clinical evidence of *adiation injury" or the death of 5 people.
These effects were not considered in the initial criteria.
This requirement would substitute physical measurements for the vague " objective clinical evidence of radiation injury." Many symptoms asscciated with high radiation doses can also be exhibited in cases of general stress adaptation and would be difficult to differentiate from clinical symptoms of radiation injury.
In evaluating the doses for defining " substantial injury" the Commission intends that the methodology used for the evaluations be realistic rather than overly conservative.
Parameters and models used in Regulatory Guide 1.109 are suitable for this purpose to the extent that they apply to accident conditions.
The present monetary values for property damage in Criterion II would be replaced by things that could be readily counted or estimated l
within a relatively short time following an accident such as, tax assessments, l
l I
10
_ _ _ _ _ ~.
l l'.
(7590-01) numbers of people unemployed and numbers of people evacuated.
In Criterion l
II (2), the assessed value of property requiring decontamination is used as an index of damage.
Criterion II (3) is based upon an assumed loss
]
(to the person directly affected and others) of $100 per person-day of l
lost employment.
In Criterion II (4) a cost.of $25 per person-day for evacuees is used to arrive at the number of evacuees equivalent to the
$2.5 million loss.
1 i
III.
Petition for Rulemaking A petition (PRM-140-1) to the NRC from the Public Citizens Litigation Group and Critical Mass Energy Project requested that the-accident at' the Three Mile Island nuclear station be found to be an ENO and that the Commission make the criteria for determination of an EN0 more in line with the intent of Congress.
Notice of receipt of the petition and a request for public comment were published in the Federal Register on l
August 28, 1979 (44 FR 50419).
One public comment was received related l
to the ENO criteria.
The commenter, an official of a nuclear utility, believed that the current criteria for determining an-'EN0 are reasonable.
The comenter stated that Congress intended that the waiver of defenses be limited to incidents resulting in significant injury or loss and that the current criteria are consistent with this.
The commenter also-believed that lowering the threshold for an ENO would lead to higher premiums for insurance coverage and could at some point endanger the availability of insurance coverage, 11 l
(7590-01) l Based upon the experience during the Three Mile Island EN0 deter-mination, the Commission believes that the proposed EN0 criteria are more practicable than the present criteria.
The proposed criteria retain the dual determination of the statutory definition, i.e., there must be a substantial release of radioactive materials and substantial damages.
Further, the proposed criterion for substantial damages retains the assurance that the waivers of defenses will not be invoked in case of nuisance suits, while also assuring that they can be implemented when substantial damages do occur.
The Corrmission believes that the proposed criteria will not affect insurance premiums.
During the 1966 Congressional hearings on the ENO, representatives of the insurance industry testifiedE that experience with claims would be the principal determinant of insurance premiums and that institution of the waivers of defenses would not be expected to have any offect on premiums.
Also, there is the general expectation that most, if not all, courts would impose the doctrine of strict liability in the event of a large-scale nuclear incident.
This would have basically the same effect as the waivers of defenses provisions.
-3/Testimony of D. C. Thomas with E. A. Lowie, R. Fisher, L. Senger, W. M. Smith and J. H. Merritt, " Proposed Amendments to Price-Anderson Act Relating to Waiver of Defenses," Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 89th Congress June, 1966.
Superintendent of Documents, GP0 1966, page 120.
12
(759003)
Regulatory Flexibility Statement In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic' impact on a substantial number of l
small entities.
This proposed rule could affect the nuclear liability l
insurance underwriting pools and the U.S. Government.
These would not constitute a sizeable number of small entities, as set forth in the Small Business Act,15 USC 632.
LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PAR 1 140 Part 140 - Extraordinary nuc' ear occurrence, Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Reporting requirements.
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani-zation Act of 1974, as amended, and Section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 140 is contemplated.
PART 140 - FINANCIAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS Recuirements and Indemnity 1.
The authority citation for Part 140 is as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71 Stat. 576, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210); secs. 201, 202, 88 Stat.1242, as amended,1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); 55140.ll(a), 140.12(a), 140.13 and 140.13a are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2201(b));
and 1140.6 is issued under sec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
5140.84, paragraph (a) is proposed to be changed to read as follows:
1140.84 Criterion I - Substantial Discharge of Radioactive Material or Substantial Radiation Levels Offsite.
13
i (7590-01)
(a) The Commission finds that one or more of the persons offsite have been or will probably be exposed to radiation or radioactive materials which would result in estimated doses in excess of any one of the levels in Table 1:
TABLE i
l Total body 5 rem Thyroid 15 rem Bone marrow 5 rem Bone (surface or 15 rem mineral)
Skin 50 rem Other organs or tissues 10 rem i
j Exposures from the following types of sources of radiation shall be i
included:
l l
(1) Radiation from sources external to the body; (2) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from its occurrence in air or water; and (3) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from its occurrence in food or on terrestrial surfaces.
Paragraph (b) remains unchanged.
1 i
14 l
l l
(7590-01)
\\
3.
In section 140.85, paragraphs (a) and (b) are proposed to be replaced by the.following:
1140.85 Criterion II - Substantial Damages'To Persons Offrite or Property Offsite.
(a).
After the. Commission finds that an event has satisfied Cri-terion I, the Conmission will determine that the event has resulted or will probably result in-substantial damages to persons ~offsite or property offsite.if any of'the following conditions are satisfied:
(T) Persons'offsite most directly affected by.the accident have been or probably will-be' exposed to radiation or radioactive material resulting in a calculated average whole body dose per person equal to or greater than shown in the following table:-
CALCULATED AVERAGE WHOLE BODY DOSE' Average Number of Persons Dose (rems).
5 to 100 100 250 40
'500 20 1,000 10 5,000 2
10,000 or more 1-(2) Offsite property having a valt if $2,500,000 or more requires dccontamination.
Valuation shall. be based on market value taking into account the ratio of assessed value/ market value in eacn tax assessment
. jurisdiction.
15
(7590-01)
(3)
Employment loss of at least 25,000 person-days has occurred.
(4)
Evacuation of at least 100,000 persen-days has occurred.
Dated at Washington, DC this day of 1982.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commission 16
S I
REGULATORY ANALYSIS To Accompany Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR Part 140 Criteria For An " Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence" 1.
Statement of the Problem
Background
The existing EN0 criteria are in two parts:
(a) Criterion I for "sub-stantial releases of radioactive materials and (b) Criterion II for
" substantial damages." Both criteria must be satisfied in order to find that an accident was an ENO.
During the Three Mile Island ENO determination, it was found that the magnitude of certain types of damages could not be readily evaluated by the NRC staff prior to legal adjudication of the claims.
This made it difficult to evaluate whether Criterion II was satisfied.
Fortunately, in this case it was clear that Criterion I was not met so the Commission could find that the accident was not an ENO.
The Public Citizen Litigation Group - Critical Mass Energy Project had filed a petition which requested the Commission to find that the Three Mile Island accident was an ENO and to modify the existing criteria for an ENO to make them more responsive to Congressional intent.
This petition helped <c serve as an imnetus for re-evaluating the ENO criteria.
Classes of Licensees Affected:
The EN0 concept applies only to production and utilization facilities.
Objectives:
To examine the present ENO criteria and where necessary, to update and modify them.
To make them compatible with current Protective Action Guides, and to make the ENO determination easier to evaluate.
Alternatives:
Make no modifications 2.
Modify only the damage criteria
- 3.
Modify both criteria as required.
Discussion of Alternatives 1.
Make no Modifications -
This alternative would leave the current regulation in place.
This would have no impact on either licensees or the NRC unless there were another reactor accident like TMI.
In that event, the "The alternative to modify only Criterion I for substantial releases is not viable as the major difficulties lie with Criterion II.
ENCLOSURE 2
Commission would be required to make the ENO determination on the basis of the current criteria.
The Commission would be faced with the same evaluation problem with respect to Criterion II, the damage criterion, as it faced in the TMI ENO determination.
2.
Modify Only The Damage Criteria -
This alternative was considered and co>. 'a solve most of the problems with the current EN0 criteria.
However, part of the rationale for the dose values which constitute evidence of " substantial releases" was the Protective Action Guides (PAGs) issued in 1964.
Proposed revisions to these PAGs would destroy the compatibility between the PAGs and the ENO criteria.
This compatibility is believed to be desirable as any accident which required protective actions would also be deemed to have released substantial quantities of radioactive materials.
Updating Criterion I for " substantial releases" requires little effort beyond that required to modify Criterion II.
3.
Modify Both Criteria -
This alternative resolves the deficiences of both criteria.
If this alternative is adopted there still are several alternatives for expressing the criteria.
For cerion I, the use of individual dose and surface contami-natica levels remains unchanged.
The proposed modification lowers the dose criterion but retains the surface contamination levels as they remain comparable to proposed emergency response levels.
For Criterion II, the requirement for " objective clinical evidence of radiation injury" is difficult to evaluate (at least at doses comparable to the ENO criteria or even a few multiples of them.)
Many of the so-called " acute radiation syndrome" symptoms mimic those of the general stress adaptation and would be difficult to differentiate from them.
In lieu of this criterion, population dose expressed as the average dose received by a number of people has been used as the criterion for substantial injury.
For economic losses, the criterion has been restricted to three classes of readily verifiable damages:
l (1) decontamination costs or losses from contamination, (2) lost wages and related income, and (3) evacuation costs.
These quantities were shown to be readily evaluated following the TMI accident.
ENCLOSURE 2
3-Impacts on Licensees The EN0 criteria are administrative criteria for use by the Commission following an accident.
Because they do not impose any requirement upon a licensee, they do'not have any impact except following a major nuclear accident.
One commenter noted that lowering the ENO criteria could raise insurance rates and reduce insurance availability. 'This might be true if an ENO finding was required before any payments were made following an accident.
However, the EN0 detennination does not affect the magnitude of payments but only whether certain defenses are waived.
In the absence of the ENO concept, such waive'?s might still be exacted under the concept of " strict liability." This latter concept is that a person operating a potentially hazardous device (such as a power reactor) should have taken sufficient precautions.
A representative of one of the nuclear insurance firms also indicated that there should be no major effect on insurance premiums due to reasonable reductions in the ENO -
- criteria, s
I 1
ENCLOSURE 2
-_-_ _..__;.._~ _... _.
_____._--_,----.m------
~
4 DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee are copies of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to be published in the Federal Register. This proposed rule would amend the criteria for the Commission determination of an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence." The Commission is proposing to amend these criteria because of problems encountered in applying the present criteria following the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station on March 28, 1979.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be published in the Federal
. Register and 60 days will be allowed for public comment.
Addressees:
The Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environ-ment and Public Works, the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Operations, the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the Subcommittee on Energy Conser-vation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce will be notified.
EllP$ OPf 0MP
NRC PROPOSES CHANGES TO CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING AN EXTRA 0RDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to revise its criteria for determining that a nuclear accident is an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" (EN0).
The test for an EN0 is whether there was substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactive materials offsite and whether there were substantial offsite injury or damages.
When the Commission determines a nuclear accident to be an ENO, persons with claims for injuries do not need to prove that the licensee was negligent.
However, a claimant must prove that there was an injury or damage, the amount of monetary loss, and the link between the loss and radioactive material released.
After the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear station in March 1979, the Commission encountered problems in applying existing ENO criteria.
One of the problems experienced was that monetary damages, other than those directly related to evacuation, were difficult to determine and in some cases, could be resolved only af ter extended litigation.
Other issues examined by the NRC staff were:
I I) the relationship of the EN0 dose criteria to other guides for radiation exposure, and
4.
2) the case of applying the test for physical -injury.
The proposed changes to ENO criteria.in:Part 140 of NRC regulations 1 would:
1) lower the present trigger leve1 ~of 20 rems whole body dose M.
one person offsite to a 5 rem dose; 2) replace a requirement that five or more persons die'd'or were hospitalized with clinical evidence of physical injury,:with a-series. of dose criteria ranging from 5 persons calculated to have received 100-rems to -10,000 persons calculated to have received :1 rem (The. higher-exposure levels take into account' promptly manifested radiation, injury;-
the lower levels take into account possible latent effects of radiation such as cancer. );
3) determine monetary damages by readily counting or evaluating, 4
within a short time after a nuclear accident, such things as the number of people unemployed, number of persons evacuated and the tax valu'e of
. property which has been contaminated.
Like the present criteria, the proposed criteria represent admini-strative criteria for use by the Commission in a-legal decision following.
an accident and do not represent allowable or' safe limits for use by -
licensees.
g
,..o
..i, i
?
L l
- Details of the' proposed changes to the criteria were published.in o
-the Federal Register on i
i Interested persons are invited to submit ' written coments.or suggestions for consideration in connection with the proposed amendments to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear-Regulatory Comission, Washington,
-. i D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, by-i l
l ^
f l'
\\
-ENCLOSURE 4 g
w
. - -.. -,,,,