ML20042C772
| ML20042C772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1983 |
| 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-83-064A, NUDOCS 8308250291 | |
| Download: ML20042C772 (43) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ a ) a p+* "% g i 5 i l / August 9, 1983 SECY-83-64A j 4 RULEMAKING ISSUE 1 l, (Notation Vote) j j For: The Commissioners i' From: William J. Dircks l Executive Director for Operations j
Subject:
10 CFR PART 140: PROPOSED RULE TO REVISE THE CRITERIA j FOR DETERMINATION OF AN EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE 4 {
Purpose:
(1) To respond to the DOE staff comments. transmitted to you on July 12, 1983; (2) To comment on modifications to the staff's EN0 criteria proposed by Commissioner Asselstine; and (3) To provide a revised Federal Register Notice for i Commission consideration. 4 j Category: This paper covers a major policy matter. l
Background:
On February 14, 1983, a staff paper (SECY-83-64) was sent to the Comission which contained proposed modifications to the criteria in 10 CFR Part 140 for detemining whether i a nuclear accident was an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (EN0) as defined by the Section ll(j) of the. Atomic Energy Act. Subsequently, on July 12, 1983 we provided the Commission 1 i with DOE staff comments documenting the views expressed by DOE staff members at a June 30, 1983 meeting with' cognizant i NRC staff. Another DOE /NRC meeting was held on July 21, 1983 to discuss these issues. Section I provides a summary of these discussions and the NRC staff response to the DOE 1 concerns transmitted to you on July 12, 1983. Commissioner Asselstine requested staff views on two proposed modifications to the EN0 criteria in his July 15, 1983 memorandum. Our comments to these proposed modifications are in Section II. Because of modifications which arose from i i
Contact:
H. Peterson, Jr., RES 42-74578 I k $f ~-,s 60MSDz% I
t The Commissioners > the DOE discussions and from Commission comments, we have prepared a revised Federal Register Notice (FRN) to replace Enclosure 1 in SECY-83-64. This revision is-to this paper. Enclosure 1 provides comparative text marked to show the changes, deletions and additions to the original Federal Register Notice that have been made in the revision. Discussion: 1. NRC STAFF ANALYSES OF DOE CONCERNS
- REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ENO CRITERIA IN 10 CFR PART 140 1.
The principal DOE staff concern is that our proposed ENO criteria for " substantial releases of radioactive materials" are numerically equivalent to the nonnal occupa-tional exposure limits. The latter limits might then be equated with being " substantial doses". It is the numerical equivalence which is of concern as there is no text in the proposed notice which addresses occupational exposure limits. The possible association between occupational exposure standards and any reasonable ENO criterion can always be made because the occupational exposure standards are annual dose limits. If the ENO criterion were 10 rem it would be equal to two years I of exposure at the occupational dose limit; the current 20 rem ENO level would be equivalent to 4 years of occupational exposure, etc. This association between the ENO criterion-and occupational limits was also made in NRC office comments on the proposed rule; but it is one of perception and not substance. The association with potential compensation claims q mentioned by the DOE staff does not appear to be well founded as the criterion for " substantial releases" does not equate j to be one for " substantial damages" either under the current j ENO criteria or under the proposed revised criteria. The criteria represent levels which are substantially above normal levels of operation. The coments concerning the provisional nature of the EPA 3 guidance are correct but overlook the almost equivalent FDA recomendations which are finalizad and also form the basis of the proposed values (see page 8 of the proposed Federal Register Notice--Enclosure 1 of SECY-83-64) {
- These refer to the DOE comments transmitted to the Commission on July 12, 1983 and also contained as Enclosure 2 of this paper.
I f I
-~ =-.. e 1 s 3. The Commissioners-l ) 7 There is a possibility that the proposed 5-rem dose might be~ viewed byl some as ' representing a " substantial" health risk ' rather than a release "substantially:above normal operating. 1 levels". Modifying the numerical" values', asfsuggested by'- a the DOE staff, would resultiin the. loss?of La directLassociation. between-the values fin the; Protective Action: Guides and;the 1 proposed. ENO criterion. 'Rather than. modifying'the ENO. criteria,' t' the NRC staff believes that the DOE ^ staff' concerns:can be 3 alleviated if not resolved by more clearlyiindicating the basis: for the level used as the' ENO criterion?for a substantia 1' i release.- A statement'to~this'effect has:been addeduto!page19. of the draft revised Federal < Register Notice 1(Enclosure 1). 2.c. The primaryythrust of the'second' DOE issue l(EnclosureL 2) t - is whether the dose' criterion represents.a risk weighted sum.of) i 1 organ ' doses '(effective ' dose equivalent),i the committed' effectivei dose. equivalent" (which ' assigns :the;1ong-term dose?from'internalt 4' - long-lived. radionuclides.to-the; time :of fintake), or the dose.. ~ - The proposed CriterionrIlis clearly not an; effective. Lequivalent. dose' equivalent as ' organ. dose's andf a' whole' body; dose are.given 4 . separately rather thanlas? one: effective 1value.i The;use of'the; effective dose equivalent approach was!. considered by' staffcbut, + was dropped on'adviceEfrom.thelACRS assit would: precede;ther revised 10 CFR Part 20 where this: concept Lis; expected to be introduced. In order to give full weight to internal: doses:which'will! occur years after an accident, the. total dose'in:CriterionVI' should be expressed as the committed' dose equivalent. This2 clarification would consider; future doses from materials j 1 inhaledfor' ingested. at'_the time ofTtheLaccident; : The useLof committed dose equivalent for Criterion:I is reasonable and i has been 'incorporatedainuthe: revised proposed. rule.(Enclosure 1)L a 'However, as Criterion II. focusses on acute; injury,;a1 committed z doset(considering long-term delivery of:the dose).would not'be-appropriate. and :is ' not.used; These: approaches.were acceptable to the' DOE staff present-in.our: July 21 meeting. ~
- 3.
.This issue expresses DOEiconcern.with theLimplication of- ~ . an equivalence between increased risk andlinjury,- and with the possibility of extending the application of the proposed-table on page 15 of the initial proposed rule-(SECY-83-64) to larger populations using lower; average; doses.- Both the DOE 6 I s s .~_,4-~ -,--._,-.s-....s 4. m.-..
i. The Comissioners and NRC staff believe that such extension would not be warranted by the nature of the ENO. The NRC staff had truncated the' proposed table to restrict-it to doses above 1 rem. The intent of the table was to provide an objectively determined l value as a criterion to replace the current 10 CFR Part 140 l criterion requiring " clinical evidence" of radiation injury. l The table was used rather than a mathematical formula in order to limit application to the listed ranges and exclude larger l 8 l populations with lower average dose. The table ruled out an ENO determination when fewer than five people were affected; provided a 100-rem dose as roughly. equivalent to a clinically evident radiation injury, and accepted one statistically-probable death, coupled with an increased individual risk of latent injury as indicated in the table, as substantial damage for ENO purposes. The DOE comments indicate that the linear relationship implied by the table argues that it would be difficult to limit its application to just the higher average doses. An option the Commission might wish to consider (and which has been used on page 15 of Enclosure -1) is to replace the table proposed for Criterion II with the requirement that substantial injury is deemed to result if five or more people receive a calculated dose equal to or greater than 100 rads to the whole body or any organ. This would be roughly equivalent to the current criterion II, but would retain the advantage of being based on physical rather than' clinical evidence. Further, for a typical log-normal distribution of dose that might be seen around a nuclear power plant in the eastern U.S., the average dose associated with thh criterion would be on the order of 9 rem for a 10 mile radius and 1-2 rem for a 50 mile radius. This alternative was favorably received by the DOE staff members involved in our July 21, 1983 meeting. II. STAFF RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE'S PROPOSALS OF JULY 15, 1983 (1) 5140.85 Criterion I(a)-- delete the "one or more persons offsite have been or will probably be exposed" language and substitute'some language which would indicate that the Commission will make its substantial release determination based on whether a hypothetical person at the site boundary during the course of the-accident probably would have received a dose at one of the levels in Table 1. i
i The Comissioners ' This change could be effected by rewording Criterion I(a) on page 14 of the draft Federal Register Notice (Enclosure 1 of SECY-83-64)-to read as f.ollows: 1 "(a) The Comission finds that any of the following doses were or could have been received by a person or persons located on any site boundary throughout the duration of the accident: [ Table' as before]" The proposed modifications would eliminate the need to locate and evaluate the actual most. exposed individual or group of individuals. It would permit' an affirmative ENO finding to be met if the location of the highest site boundary dose were at an unoccupied location while somewhat lower total doses occurred in uccupied areas. Elimination of. the need to evaluate the dose to real people would remove from staff the burden to seek out and evaluate the exposure to individuals in unusual exposure situations. An example of this was the investigational effort and dose analysis of individuals who were present on a nearby island (Hill Island) in the Susquehanna River for a portion of the time during the Three Mile Island Accident. However, it should be noted that this did not require extensive amounts of staff resources thus only minor gains might be' achieved by.this change. There is a distinct possibility that in restricting the doses to the site boundary that the doses could be substantially higher than could be received by actual persons. The staff believes that the proposed modification would be workable and would offer some benefits toward reducing the time and effort required to evaluate an accident. However, the balance between a hypothetical case and the use of actual conditions in an ENO determination needs to be considered by the Comissioners. 3 (2) 5140.85 Criterion II(a)(1)--delete subsection (a)(1) and the table entitled " Calculated Average Whole Body Dose" and substitute as new subsection (d)(1) which reqdires [a] calculated' dose of'100,000 person rem, within a 50-mile radius of the plant. The staff did consider the use of a criterion based upon collective (person-rem) dose. This would be highly dependent ~ on the population density and would vary greatly among reactor sites. A fixed collective dose criterion (such as 100.000 person rem) would mean that, while the total impact would be o i
1 The Comissioners ' constant, the level of individual risk would vary inversely with population density. For example, if the criterion were 100,000 person-rem, then at a site which had a 50-mile population of 2 million the average per capita dose would be 0.05 rem (50 millirem) while for a site with a 50-mile population of 500,000, the average dose would'be 0.2 rem. The staff choose to use the dose to the average individual. The DOE staff observation (#3) (That our proposed criterion II(l) equates a risk of injury with actual damage) also applies to this collective dose criterion. Accordingly, the staff recommends that Criterion II(a)(1) be modified by deletion of all but the first line: 'five or more individuals with estimated doses in excess of 100-rem. This is a verifiable and objective measure of " substantial injury." This modification would resolve DOE concern #3. k I illiam J. Dircky xecutive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1. Comparative Text of SECY-83-64 FRN 2. DOE Staff Coments 3. Revised FRN Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, August 24, 1983. Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, August 17, 1983, with an 1 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 may be expected. i DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners OGC OPE OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY l
'4., A.d-+ u4+-+ L a s MS A d' a. <='- f .a' au y 4 J 1 i Y a, ' e r2. J J-i. .~. 4 t- ,1 i 2 i 9 i' f ? 4 U a i i j n 4 i v ENCLOSURE 1 - e i ? .f ' t I s t i a i 5 i a 2 6 I mm,- ,-...,.....,,, e
to -w 1 .4 e j (15g0-01) (1590-01) NUCLEBR REGULATORT C0ptEl5510M' MuttEAR REGULATORY C0pWtl5510N 10 CFR Part 140 10 CFR Part 140 Criteria for en Entreerdinary Nuclear Occurrence AGENCY: Nucleer pegulatory Countssten. AGENCYi stuclear Regulatory Consmission. ACil0N: Proposed rule. 'ACil0ft: 1 roposed rule. P The llucleer Regulatory Commission (lutC) is cansidering emending 51sgW!EY: I the Nuclear Regulatory Commetssten (IntC) is considering emending its reguistions to reefse the criterte for en "entraordinary nuclear. SufttART: L its regulations to revise the criterte for en *entreerdinary nucteer-occurrence" {tNO). If a nuclear incident were found by the Comuntssion . eccurrence* (EN0). : If a nucteer factdent were found by the Commelssion to'be en *entreerdinary nuclear occurrence." persens with claims for -- ta be en *entraordinary nuclear occurrence.* persons with cleles for.- Injuries er dameges need not prove that the licensee er other responsible IIjuries or damages need not prove that the licensee er other responsible -' parties were negitgent. 'The proposed thenges la the EIIO criterte will . reduce the problems encountered by the Comentssten.In applying the taisting criteria af ter the accident et Three Mlle Island nuclear plant -esisting criterte to the occident et Three Mlle Island nuclear plant. ' (IMI).'.These proposed changes will affect oppilconts for and holders of '(TMI)..These proposed changes will affect applicants for and helders of . IntC Itcenses for production f actitties and uttltretten facilities and IIRC licenses for preesctlen facilities and uttilretton ' facilities and 6;ther persons Indemnified as to such fedllities. ' ether persons indsuntfled es to such factittles. Censments Casaments Daft: ' The comment period emptres en. DATE: The comment period espires on -received after that date will be considered if it is practice 1'to de so.! rece*=ed af ter thet date will be considered if It ts practical to do so. but assurance of consideration connet be given un'less the cessents ere. but assurance of consideraticu connet' he given unless the comments are flied en er before. -f'lled on or before All Interested persons who destre to sutett written casuments AODRt55E 5:. All Interested persons she destre to sdait wrttten' comments 4 A00eE55EE5: ' V .or suggestions in connection with this proposed rule should send them to - tor suggestlens in connection with this proposed rule should send them toy the Secretary of the Consmission,11.5. Iluclear pegulatory Cesselssion, t the Secretary of the Commission.11.5. Nuclear Degulatory Casumissten. Washington.'DC 20555. Attention: -Docketing and Service trench..Cooles af all doomments received may be esamined and copied la the Countssion's
- Public Document Room at 1717 N 5treet IRf. Washington, DC.
pubtle Document Room at.171711 Street IRf.18eshingte=2 8C. - tectosure 1- -.b m r%),* m. m m ~,.. c s =
m .-. ~. 2 -i (?$g0-01) ~ (1530-01)' f DR flallellt INFORMAil0N CONIACT: M. T. petersen. Office of leuclear Reguletory itesearch,ti.5. Iluclear Regulatory Cammission. tisshfagten. DC ftNt t0RTMER lif0Rimitell CSliACT: II. T. potersew. Of f tce of Iluclear ) a 205M,- Telephone (308) 427 4210. Regulatory Research. W.S. Iluclear llegulatory Cementssion teeshington. DC 9 20555. Telephone (301) 427-M ' SUPPtiMENIAtf thf0AMAll0N: SUPPLEMENialtY lurompailoil: 1. Secteround I-88CI#re""d in the event of a nuclear incident. cieles for injertes or demoges -
- i con be brought against the plant Ilcensee and other parties considered In the event of a neclear incident.'cleles for injuttes or damages.
4 I' respo sible for the incident,. the price-Andersen previstens of the can be brought egelset the plant Ilconsee end other parties considered ' n Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. (Sectlen 170) provide a responsible for the incident. The price-Anderson prowlstens of the O system of private insurance, electric uttitty fundt -and gewornment Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended.'(Section 170) pre' vide e A One of < ~ ordt indemnity totaling 1560 elliton.te per pubile liability cletes. Systen of privete lesurance and electric willity funds estalfag $560 millfen i 1' A 1 -the princ.ipal obstacles to a clateent's recovery for injertes er damages to pay public Ilebility cletes. ' One of the principal abstectes to a clalment's ' - cou1J be the necessity for the clalment to prove negifgence on the part rece?"y for injuries er esmoges could be the necessity 'for' the cle'iment to prove Congress attempted to remove this obstecte in 1966 - MgHgence en the port of _ the defendents or the obsence of centributory neglfgence '. 4 atthedefendants.A <l" ) by amendtag the Price-Anderson Act to datneduee the elesely-related. en the part of the cletaant. Congress attempted to remove this abstacle in 1966 - 8 de8enses, . cancepts-af entraesdinaspousleer assurmance and we4eer 4 by amending the Price-Anderson Act to require the walver of certale defenses by en nuclear incident is' en
- entre-..
Indemnified pwson iAen the nuclear ecclernt usenttede 'triegered* the (110 criterte, '.idhen the Commission determines thr ordinary nuclear occurrence
- within the meaning'of the Act end the -
r Commission's regulations the wolver of defenses prowlsfons contained in e a mc er tac is an tra-s the Insurance pollctes and indemnity agreements Septementing the price-. ordinary nucleer eccorrence" within the meantag of the Act and the L Andersen system are activated. tenen Abs Cammisstem.has detemmined.that Comissten's regulettens.' the eelver of defenses provistens contained in an.430 has-occurred..any 4aduants4ed dependent mest-=elve-45ee64en i the Insurance peittles and indenntty agreements laylamentine the price- ' 12cn(1) L.Ah, as-ic Ener.gr ct_of 1954 as amendedh ..Andersen systes are activated. As nroeided Ine Sectlam Uent si af the **de ~ a 4 ~ Energy Act of 1964. es ' emended. the wetved defenses teclude:
- tactosure 1 2
2 4 m s+.. u. 1.. m mi. w =,. _ _.. - _ _ _. _ w .,.-ri-w** e -4.+ e ,-*cw..- ...m. -em.- v-m e.+ .m.
- __x_,
m m .*. m. ..-m__.__.__u__._,
- ~
~. (1590-01) [7590-01I (t) Any issue er defense es to the conduct of the clelmont (t) Any issue er defense es to the conduct of the clalment "P"**8**"""'*d-er fault of persens indewiifled.. ) n or defense, as to cherttable or governmental (61) any issue or defense, as to charitable er governmental g fauunity, and (fil) Any issue er defense based on any statute of Italtetten (till any issue er defense based on any statute of Ilmitetten if salt is instituted within three years from the dote r if sult is instituted within three years frem the date on uhtch the clelmont first kneu. or ressenably could en uhtch the cletment first kneu, or ressenably could have kneum, of his injury or damage end the cause.
- 1 have namn. of his injury or demoge and the cause thereof, but in no event more then twenty years af ter thereof but in no event more then twenty years efter the date of the peclear incident.
the date of the nuclear incident. Whether er not en (No is declared, heuever. e cletment would still have-The motvers of defenses, ence triesered by en (110 detevelnetten by the Commissten. < i i relleve the claiment of hevfag to prove negligence by en defendent 'I to preve: ~(a) personal injury er denege. (b) menetary amount of less, and of having to disprove defenses such as contributery negligence. Whether q and (c) the causal link between his less and the radioective enterfel er not en f110 is doctored, bouever.' e clalment usuld still beve to prove: .i released. laten apidicable 1ba_melessoof defenses.psevie4 ens-re84ess < (e) personal injury or damage. (b) emnetary amount of menetary loss. end (c) i the-elelsenLof he.Ing.te_ prove,',. - 5 emp defendent-end-oE g the causel link between the cletment's loss and the redlooctive material heelag to diseseve desenses. suchtr4butary-megl4 enes. - ( 9 released. The ters *entreordinary nuclear occurrence #is defined by Sectlen The term *entreerdfrary nuclear occurrence
- is defined by sectlen 11(j) of the Atoute Energy Act as fellems:
II(j) of the Atanic Energy Act as fellems: 1 The teen *estesordinary nuclear occurrence" usens any event costing ! . The term "estreereinery'auclear occurrence
- e.eens any event cousing e discharge er dispersel of source, spectal nuclear. er byproduct a discherge or dispersal of searce, special nucleer. or byproduct
- meterial from its Intended piece of confinement la enounts offstte. '
meterfel fram its latended piece of confinement la enounts offstte. - or causing redletten levels offsite, uhtch the Caetssten determines or conting redletten levels offstte. which the Commission deteestnes to be substantle), and which the Commissten determines has resulted to be substantial. and which the Camelssten determines has resulted : . or probably ullt result in substantial demoges to persons offstte. er probably wl11 result In substantial esmoges to persons offstte er property offstte. ~' of property effstle. i The-tfl0.defin M4em thus-pro & des a tme.prenged test 4' (a) substentiel. 4-This prowlsten clearly cells for a tus-prenced determinetten: ~ (el' substantial ( offsite release or substantial offsite redtetten, and (b) actuel or.' offsite release er substantial offsite redtetten, and (b) ectuel or prospective' substantial offsite damages. Yhts sectlen else reevires the Prospective substantlet offsite demoges. This sectlen else requires the . Commission to *estabitsh criterte in writing
- for applicotton of these
. Canetssion to " establish criterle la writing" for applicatten of these ~ tests to spectfle events. - tests.to specific events. 3 't 3- [ e --.O .g ~4.~-,_,,._i_ ,m,_______ _ i _ _
e.. ~- 17590 4 1) (153001) The Ceaselssion's ar=<amt regulations were established in 1968(13FR, < M8) and are found In 10 UR N 84 and Htt5. Consistent with s k . g ihe Commission's entsttag ce4tes4a were established in 1968(33fR g 4 statutory definitton for the Commission to detenutpe that there has teen rada of-f edent.pegulattees. ( 15g93) and are found in &4 ale 104f th-en END, the Commission must find that both substantial releases of redlaective < part.t40,5edians 140.84 and 140.85. For the Camelssion to determine 4. antial oHsite h W sdstandal injury or Wantial < m a s or s ' that there has beca en [NO. both Ge4terlee I end 4riterion-ll mett be damages have occurred (both Criterton I and Criterton il must be met). he lan9eage-et--the-sriteeJa. especielly Cr64erton-l. 4+-rather The language of the reguletten especially that related to Criterton 8. is met. teohnieal.and-predse, rather technical and precise. Criterton I relates to whether there has been a substantial discharge -CatitR10N I Criterton I relates to whether there has been a substantial distharge or dispersal of radioactive snaterial of fsite, or tho4 there has been a or dispersal of radioactive material offstte, er wyh there has twen a ( substantial level of rad!ation offsite. Criterton I calls for this substantial level of radiation of fstte. Criterton I calls for such a finding when radioactive material is released from its intended place of finding when radioactive material ts released free its intended place of confinement or radiation levels occur of fsite and either of the following conflesment or radiation levels occur of fsite and either of the following findings are also made: findings are also made: eens offstte were could have been, or s. That one or more persons offstte were, could have been, or - a. That one or more
- stlen er to redloactive material, might be esposed to rediation er to redloactive material, might be esposed '.
resulttog in a dose er
- ejected dose in excess of one of resulting in a dose er in a projected dose in encess of one of,
the levels in the folle. 'Se* the levels in the felloutng table: TABLE I - TOTAL pn0JCCTED RA0lAll0N DOSES TABLE I TOTAL PhuJECTED RADIATION D0$t$ Critical Orean Oose (ress) . Dose (rems) Critical Organ i Thyrold 30 30, Thyroid Whole body 20 20 Bone Itarrou 20 Whole body sone Itarrow ' 20 Skin - 60 to Skin Other organs er tissues 30 Other organs or itssues 30 la measuring or projecting doses. esposures from the following In measuring or projecting doses, exposures from the followtog types of radletion shall be included. types of radiation shall be included. (I) Radletion from sources enternal to the body; (1) Radiation from sources enternal to the bodyg (2) Radtoactive material that may be taken into tie body from (2) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from air or waters and air or water; and (3) Radioactive material that may be taten into the body from (3) Radioactive matertal that may be taken into the body from food er from land surf aces. food or from land surfaces. 4
- Enclosure 4
4 OLD MEkf w. m-mi-, x m a
i -- [1590-OF) ~ ~ (7590-01) E 6. (1) As the result of a release of redloactive materlat from a reacter there is at least a total of any 100 square ~ seters of offstte property that has surface contamination. er ibis contaminatten must show levels of radiation in 6. (1) As the result of a release of radioactive material from excess of one of the values listed in column 1 or column a reactor there is at least a total of any 100 square 2 of the felloutsg table. 02 wters of offsite property that has surface contamination. As the result of a release eJ radioactive material in the This contamination sust show levels of radiation In (2) excess of one of the values listed in eq1muri l or column course of transportation surface contamination of any 2 of the folloufng table, or offstte property has occurred. The contamination aust show levels of radiation la excess of the values Itsted As the result of a release of redleactive material in the 1" c#lts'i 2 of the folloutng table, (2) course of transportation surface contamination of any offsite property has occurred. The contamination must T Attt II. TOTAL Slptf EE COMTAftlNA110ll LEVEL 5* show levels of radiation in excess of the values ilsted Column 1 Column 2 In column 2 of the following table. bey
- 7 jgag Other offsite f ast! II. 10TAL 5tIItf ACE CONTAMINAT10lt LEVEt5*
yyp,,g emitter reactor station. property Column 1 Coltsun 2 Alpha emission 3.5 microcortes per square 0.35 microcuries litt11ty's property beyond from transuranic meter per square meter type of the fence surrounding the Other offstte tsotopes esttier reactor station. property-Alpha emissten 35 microcurtes per square 3.5 microcuries .from isotopes meter per square meter Alpha emission 3.5 microcurtes per square 0.35 microcuries other than trans-from transuranic meter per square meter uranic isotopes isotopes Beta or gamma 40 milltrads/ hour at 4 milltrads/ hour Alpha emission 35 microcurtes per square 3.5 etcrocortes entssion I cm. (measured through at I cm. (seasured not more than 7 stiligrams through not more per square meter per square centleeter of than F milligrams from isotopes meter per square centleeter other than trans total absorber) uranic isotopes oftotalabsorber) Beta or gasina 40 millirads/ hour at 4 elllireds/ hour eelssion 1 ca. (measured through at I ca. (measured
- Ihe eastmum levels (above background), observed or projected. 8 or not more than 7 ell 11 grams throu'qh not more more hours after initial deposities.
per square centimeter of thee 7 milligrams If triterton I is satisfied. Criterton 11 must then be applied. tntal absorber) per square centimeter-oftotalabsorber) CRiitRI0st!! 3Ibe maximum levels labove background). observed or projected. 8 or Criterton il is satisfied if an of time folloutng findings is made: more hours after lattfal deposition. (1) The event has resulted in the death or hospitallratton, If Criterion I is satisfled. Criterton 18 must then be applied. althin 30 days of the event. of five or more people located offstte shoutsg objective clinical evidence of physical Criterton 11 Is satisfied if onl of the folloutng findtags is mede: The event has resulted in the death or hospitalftstfon. 5 (1) ulthin 30 days of the event. of five or more people located sffsite shoutng objective citnical evidence of physical 5 obb W6kl
i ~ ~ 17590-Ol] (1590-01) Injury from espesure to the rectoactive, toutc. esplosive, or other hesordous properties of the reactor's source, special nuclear. er byproduct setertal; o_r Injury from esposure to the redleactive, toxic. emplosive or (2) $2.500.000 or more of danese of fsite has been or will probably other hazardous properties of the reactor's source, specfal be sustained by any one person, or $5 million er more of swh nuclear, or byproduct matertal; or~ dame 9e to total has been or will probably be sustained, as the result of such event; g 12.500.000 or sore of damage offstte has been or will probably (2) be sustained by any one person, or $5 million or more of such (3) The Cometssten finds that $5.000 or more of demete offstte has damage in total has been or util probably be sustained, as the been or will probably be sustained by each of 50 or.more result of sut.h event; or-persons. Provided that $1 million or more of such damage In total has been or will probably be sustained, as the result of (3) The Comission finds that $5,000 or more of damage offsite has such events, been or will probably be sustained by each of 50 or more persons, provided that $1 million or more of such denege in The ters
- damage" refers to damage arising out of or resulting from the total has been or will probably be sustained. as the result of redloactive, toute. emplosive, or other hazardous properties of the such events.
reactor's source special nuclear. or byproduct material, and shall t,e The ters
- damage" refers to damage artsing out of or resulting from the based upon estimates of one or more of the following:
radioactive, tostc. emplosive, or other harardous properties of the f l'- Total cost necessary te put effected property back into use. reactor's source, special nuclear, or byproduct metertal, and shall be toss of use of affected property. 2 i L3I Value of affected property where not practical to restore to based upon estimates of one or more of the following:' (4) Financial less resulting from protective actions such as e e e er avoid esposure to radiation . f 1 IL Total cost necessary to put affected property back into use. ,r loss of use of affected property. 2 1 Value of affected property where not practlcal to restore to - II. pro h h W ic h I 3 i financial loss resulting from protective actions such as The accident et the Three Mlle Island Nuclear power Station. Unit use. - (4) evacuation appropriate to reduce or avoid espesure to rodf ation
- 2. on March 28. Ig79 uncovered several problems in applying the entsting IMO or to radioactive materials.
criterta in 10 CfR 140.84 and 140.85. The Commission's determination II. Problees in Application that the accident et TMI was not en " extraordinary nuclear occurrence
- was published in the Federal Reetster_ on April i3.1980 (45 FR 21590).
The accident at the three Mile Island Muclear power Station. IMit This determination was based in part en MRC staf f report NUREG-063f.
- 2. on March 29. 1979 uncovered problems la applyfog the entsting ENO
- Report to the Nucleer Regulatory Commission from the Staf f panel on the criteria in 10 CFR 140.84 and 140.65. The Commission's determination Consission's Determination of en Estraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENG)*.
that the accident at fMI was not en " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" was published in the Federal Register of April 23. 1980 (45 FR 21590). 6 Enciesure i This determination was based in part on NRC staff report NUREG-0637 " Report to the Nuclear segulatory Copumission from the Staff panel on the, a Cometssion's Deteralnation of an Entraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (ENG)* 6 out>
~. d [F590-Ol] (1590-01) dated January 1980. Yhts report is avelleble for inspection in the dated January 1980. This report is evallable for inspection fa the Commission's Pubile Document Nome at the above address or may be purchased comentssion's Public Doctament Noon at the above address or any be purchased from the National Technical Information Service. $pringfield. Virgtnta from the National Technical Information Service. $pringfteld. Virglala 22161. 22161. Basically. there are problems with the existing (NO criter'le. These Basically the problems with the entsting (MO cetteria are: 4 probless are: I. Several of the dose criterte for " substantial releases
- In the present _ 4 1.-
he.tN9-eciter44-4er 'subseential re4eeees* need-4e be-ee-4 3:egulation were formulated in part to be consistent with the then effective k wined beusse 41.S -H - vts'- * 'ha NorJsetecttme -- ( Protective Action Guldes. $ lace 1958 the Protective Action Guldes have been C 'reformulatnd at lower dose levels. a,a t-Alch+artially pres 4M tishases Jea-the-ee4 tnet.tNG. ( 4 2. The current Criterten Il for "substanttal injury" requires 2. The current Criterion 11 for *substential injury
- requires
' objective clinical evidence of radiation injury. hspsforsuchinjury, d objective clinical seidence of redletten injury. _Houever tests for evidence g Psychological stress can manifest some of such in.lury are not necesserfir conclusive proof of 'redlological injury. tre not conclusive ner.untqua.4 A-For esemple. Psychological stress con mentfest some physical symptoms stellar physical syssptoms steller to those associated with scute radiation to those associated with acute redletten injury; therefore, they may not be rseful. IRjury, therefore, they may not be useful.
- 3. _ Honetary deneges in Criterten 11 were difficult, if not impossible.
3. Mnnetary damages in Criterlen 11 were difficult te evaluate. 4 to evelvete accurately in a timely menner. for emaaple in the ENO determination - la the ENO determination for the Three Mlle Island Acctdent. costs such 3 as evacuation payments were ebulated bet meny deseges such as diminutton - for the three Mlle lsland Accident, costs soch as evecuetten payments were g evaluated and tabulated. Ikwever, many damages such as diminution of property (f property values and business losses required court adjudication; . before the proper compensatten could be awardedf relees and business losses required court adjudication before the proper campensetton could be suerded. Proposed Criteria . Proposed Criterte As noted above. the statutory definition of en *entreordinary nuclear A The.Cesselssion notes _1 hat the statutory definttlen of en *entraor-e" la settlen 11(j) of the AEA requires ENO criteria that reflect
- 3 dinary nuclear occurrence" in section 11(j) of the AEA regstres ING Lug, conditions
- (1) substantlel discharge er dispersal of radioactive meterials (
criterte that reflect tuo conditions: substanttal discherge er dispersal I 7 Enclosure I i Obb MEW
i i l \\ [7590-01) (1590-01) cf redtoactive materials and substantial damages. Like the criteria they would replace, the p oposed criterta see due4-end require two g the proposed criterta represent administrative criteria for use by the Commisston separate deterstaattons. tiowever, the proposed criterte seek to over. come the problems encountered in applying the present criterte for ' substantial damages." The proposed criteria focus on things that can came the measurement prt.alems encountered in applytag the present regulation for be readily counted or estimated within a relatively short time folloutng an accsdent. 44&e Ahe-prasant csiterta, the proposed criterta represent sdainistrative criteria for use by the Commission in a legal dectston f411owing an accident and do not represent allowable or safe Ilmits for PROPOSED REVISED CRITERI0ll 1 Criterton I is a mechantus for determining that a substantial release of radioactive materla) or redtation offstte has occurred. Currently Criterton Criterton I ts a mechanism for determining that a substantial I spectfles a 20-rem sdele body dose to one person offstte with higher release of radioactive matertal or radf ation offstte has occurred. values for spectfic organs. The proposed r g g would lower these 4 Currently Criterton I is a 20 rem whole body dose to one person offstte levels to a g ee whole body dose with correspond a organs doses. Ibis .(. Elth higher values for $Pectf tc organs. The proposed satteelen would [ proposed modification has been selected to be numertcally consistent lower these levels to 5 rem whole body dose and correspondtng organ with the Protective Action Guides proposed by the tavironmental Protection - 4 This proposed criterion has been selected to be numerically y doses. equtvalent to the Protective Action Guides proposed by the Environmental that any nuclear accident which would have warranted protective actions Pratection Agency M and those issued by the food and Drug AdntalstrettonM. will be found to constitute a substantial release of radioactive materials lhls ensures that any nuclear accident which was serious enough to havr. and will satisfy the first condition for en EMD determination. g warranted protective actions will be found to constitute substantial 8 rsteases of radioactive materials and will trtyger the ENO determination. 9 J/Envirorumental Protection Agency. " Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for thsclear Incidents
- EPA Report LPA-570/3 75-001 (Revised July 1979).
Minvirorunental Protect!on Agency.
- Manual of Protective Action Guides 2ffood and Drug Administratten ' Accidental Radioactive Contamination of and Protective actions for nuclear Incidents
- EPA Report Ihanan food and Animal feedst becommendettons for State and Local
. EPA-520/1-75-001 (Restsed July 1979). Agencies ' pubitshed in the federal Register on Or.tober 22,1982 (41 ft 41013). Mfood and Drug Administration " Accidental Radioactive Contamination of liuman food and Animal feedss Recommendations for State and Local Agenctes.* FEDERAL REGl51[8 of October 22,1982(47FR47073). 8 teclosure 1 8 OLb A/E W m m ~ m um . m.-.. m
~ -- ~- w-- (1590-01) (r590-01) The preessed dose levels for Celterten 1 which would define levels of l The language of Criterton I would be clartfled, replacing the words "substantiel releases or substantfel offsite doses
- for screening purposes.
' "... one or enre persons of fstte were. could have been er eight be p,, gn the reage of the occupettenal dose Ilmits and fience could be regarded esposed.. " with the proposed words *... one er more of the persons as too leu to be viemed es botna "subste attel.* Itemever, these dose criterte of fsite mere or will probably be esposed...* 4thinterest-ef are substenttally above the deses to the general pubite espected from normel' - I; eperetten of INIC-Itcensed fecl11ttes as limited by 40.105 of 10 Cfit Port 20, representing the mest senservettee. case the amC.4taf? " r : whoss.e hypothetica -mi et lit! would beve W ** felleanthe redseesttee and in that sense, constitute criterte for "substantfel releases." plisG in a 6.a* durlag.the A =* tan of the ealane Sm.anderhtas4 t tha *rauld.4ase teentes."might.he" cenditions. The-peeposed-sp44erton ... ene er more persons offstte were, could have been er alght be ' 1 is more remsanable and mortehlh offstte were er will probably be esposed...* This focoses attentlen, for the g 'i' .The surf ace contamination levels in Criterten I will not be changed IMO determination, an' the actual measureable consegsences of the accident itself /. as the levels are consistent with proposed emergency response levels. I-The entstlog procedures in sl40.84(b) are inespensive and can be performed - The surface contaminetten levels in Criterton I will not be changed t: rapidly. Although more sophisticated measurement techntgees are ovelleble as these levels are consistent with proposed emergency response levels, t and specific radienuclide levels could be measured, the entsttag steeler The entsting procedores in 9140.04(b)areinespensiveendcanbeperformed tests provide adequate Indication of contaminetten levels for en ENO rapidly. Alttiosgh more sophisticated seesurement te'chniques are avellebte dete wination. and specific redtonectide 1wels could be meesvred, the entsting simpler tests provide adequate Indicetten of contaminetten levels for en (NO Criterton II. which defines substantial demoges, would be'chenged entensively. le-14eu-ef the present 'criterte based upon the tetel (
- deteretnetten.
PROPOSED REVl$E9 CRiittlell II-monetary worth of damages or clinical evidence of radiation infory, the . Criterten 11. which defines sestantial densges. would be changed " proposed Criterton Il for the amount of damages represents. items for ' entensively.' Instead of the present criteria based upon the totet L .(' which information is readily available within the {$ae frame for en ENO. l monetary worth of damages er ellalcel evidence of radiation injury, the - - determination jgeadeye*$. for ' ach of tne monetary regstremen's. the e PeePosed Criterten Il for the amount of damages represents items for - total valuetten is assumed to be egelvetent to a less of $2.5 million. This value is in the present (NO criterton as the amount of less to a. g Enclosure.1 i . single individual which wuld constitute en ENO. The Commissten no g 1 1 .j i .+
4 -.... - -...... ~ - ~ ~ - - e (f590-01] (is,0.ct) e tch information is readily available within the time frame for longer belferes it necessary to specify different amounts of monetary an (NO deterstration. For each of the monetary reqetrements, the damages depending upon the member of people effected. total valaatton is assumed to be equivalent to e loss of $2.5 millten. t This value is in the present (N0 criterton as the amount of loss to a hts criter.lom-proposed Criterion it (1) accounts for human injury, I"" "* psesents a table of==pasur=< arrarding.ia annaber* ae a=emeen== pated. r SM w us u to spec y m nt amounts of The-higher e.posure levet,-Sahe-int: :n -tp % "; = rtfe ded-endta64en-m e r of W e a Hected. '='a account IsIJury; ths lower. le==1= 'a la m " ~ d people taka ~ poss&te lateed af f arts or radiat fon==rk at ce=rae Tha highes' 1==eL-Proposed Criterton II (1) accounts for himmen Injury. the level of uses a 100 rem radiattan dnse to 5 nr unre people at ma fadicatfan of a 100. rad radletten dose to five or more people is an Indication of potential -Mstaattal lajury* eathae-tha" '-'=g *t'-- citatel-*vidense
- substantial injury". This would replace regelrtng
- objective citnical o&-eadtation '9;* - = ha'h af $ feept*.
T'--
- -ts-mone-mot evidence of radiation injury
- to five people or the death of five people.
ma=* Wrest.1st the taittal critarta. This requirement would substitute This requirement would substitute physical measurements for the vague
- objective citalcal evidence of radiation injury.* MPny symptoms associated with high '
physical measurements for the vague " objective citatcal evidence of radiation doses can also be exhibited in cases of general stress adaptation and radiation injury.* Many symptoms associated with high radiation doses could be difficult to dif ferentiate from citatcal symptoms of radiation injury. can also be exhibited in cases of general stress adaptation and would be In evaluating the desst for deftalag
- substantial injury
- the Countssion
. dif ficult to dif ferenttate from citatcal symptoms of redtation injury. Intends that the methodology used for the evaluations be realistic in evaluating the doses for defining " substantial injury
- the Canaission -
rather than overly conservative. Parameters and models used in pegulatory Intends that the methodology used for the evaluations be realistic Guide 1.109* are suitable for this purpose to the extent that they apply rather than everly conservative. Parameters and models used in Regulatory to accident conditions. Guide 1.109 are suitable for this purpose to the extent that tfey apply to accident conditions. Segulatory Guide 1.10g.
- Calculation of Annual Doses to lean from hauttne
- Heleases of peactor triguents for the Purpose of tvaluettne comeltence with The present monetary values for property damage in Criterton !!
IU u n rart 30. nemmeMa IN Availab'e from Director. Dietston of Technical , information med Docement Centrol. (f5NRt. Nashinston. UL nrm would be replaced by things that could be readily counted or estfested ~ 10 within a relatively short ttee folloutng an acctdent such as tan assessments, m 10 .GU EN
.s [F590-01]'*' ] e p q maters of people unemployed and numbers of people evacuoted. In Criterton ~ ll (2) the assessed value of property requiring decentaminetten is used as an indes of damage. Criterton 11 (3) is based epon an assumed loss i ' (to the person directly affected and others) of $159 per persen-day of ~ the essessed value of property requiring decontaminatten is used as en inden of lost employment. ' In Criterton II (4) a cost of $25 per person-day for demoge. Criterion II (3s is based upon en assumed loss (to t'he person directly 4 - evacuees is used to arrive et the number of evacuees equivalent to the effected and others) of $100 per persen-day of lost employment. In Criterton !?.5 militan loss.J gg, gg of evacuees egelvalent to the $2.5 at11 ton loss.
- i Ill, petitlen for slutemening Ill. petition for Rulamaking
' fn a petitlen (pfM-140-1) to the NRC. the Public Cittrens Litigetton ~f A petttlen (plM-140-1) to the IlllC from the pubile Cittrens Litigation - Group and Critical Mass Energy project requested that the accident at ' the ihree Mlle Island nuclear station be found to be en ENO that the < Commission make the criteria for determinetten of en EII0 more in line ' ~ g uith the intent of Congress. Notice of receipt of the petitlen and a pubitshed la the Federal Oselster en April 23.1900{45ft275g0]lthatthe' . eequest for public comment were published in the Federal llegister en Ihree litle Island Accident was not en EIEB as defined in the Atomic Energy Act August 28. 1979 (44 TR 50419). One public comment was received related and the Camelssion's requiettens. The petitleners aise roguested that the Commissten to the Elio criteria. The commenter, en efffctal of a nuclear utility. make the criterte for determinetton of an EII0 more la line with the Intent of i t.elleved that the current criterle for determining en ENO are reasonable. Congress. Notice of recetyt of t'.e petttlen and a request for pubite comment the commenter stated that Congress latended that the wolver of defenses were publlshed in the federal 3%. r en Augu.t 20. 1979 (44 TR 5041g). One 14 limited to incidents resulting in stgrlficent injury or less and that. pubile coet was receleed regarding time ENO criterte. The commenter.' en the current criterla are consistent with this. The commenter else official of a nuclear utility, belleged that the current criterte for detevelatag 4 ' believed that lowering the threshold fer an EII0 would lead to higher . en Ell 0 are reasonable. The commenter stated that Congress latended that the j . prentiers for insurance coverage and could at same pelat eneanger the wolver of defenses be Iteited to incidents resulting in significant injury or - avallebility of Insurance coverage. 11 . Enclosure is Dub A/EW. 4 a -w-m n - a s ~ ,.w. ~n
m. -e ~ m tr5g0.el; -(153o-o1) The commenter else 1ess and that the current criterle are consistent with this. 4 Besed upon the espertence during the Three felle Island (NO deter- ( believed that louering the threshold for en (NO would lead to higher preumlums minatten. the Comission believes that the pro 6esed (NO criteria are for tasurance coverage and could at some point endanger the availability of more proctfrable than the present criterie. The proposed criterle { . i lasurance coverage. retain the dual determinetton of the statutory definition. I.e., there The Castssten bellens that the esisting ENO regulation is consistent with must be a substantial release of redleactive asterials and substantley the Act. - Neume. Msed upon the emportence during the three fille Island ING deter. l j Further, the proposed criterton for substantial'demoges retains utnetten, the Comissten believes that the proposed E110 regulatlen ~ey more. dameges. the assurance that the wolvers of defenses will not be inveted la case - practicable then the present requiallen. Thus, while the proposed regletions 'I-' of nulsence suits, while also assuring that they can be laplemented when M " "'" substantial damages de occur. the dual deteretnetici of the statutory deffnf tfon. l.e.. there must be a substantial - Further. the proposed release of redleective meterfels and substantial damages. the Camelssion believes that the proposed criterte will not effect criterton for substantial demoges retains the assurance that the walvers of defenses lesurance preelsses. During the 1966 Congresslenet hearings en the (NO. udt not be invoked in case of nulsence suits, while also e2suring that they l representatives of the insurance industry testlfle d that espertence. con be implemented tdien substantiel demoges de occur. with clales would H the principe1 determinent of insurance prealises and The Cennissten belleest that the proposed criterte will not ef fect - that lastitution of the walvers of defenses weeld not be expected to ' insurance premiums. ' Suring the 1?% Congressional hearings on the (NO. have any effect on preatums. Mee.18 eve-4s :, -.. d -. _ ' ^':- Y that espertence 'd _ _ " - Ef sanast Mability representatives of the inserence industry testified ? that. mest. 8' w ally-sousts i c: with clales weeld be the principal determinent of laserence prentises'and h* 8ea11 ' 8-' " ' Thie -12 hve 1 la tha== ant er = ' = =. scale = 1 ear that institutten of the wolvers of defenses would not be espected to the-ease-ef fe' * - "t re~ =* ' *=se, p aa lens have any effect'en prontues. The proposed sod'Ificettens to' the two criterlaj mould not have chanced the'estcome of the ENO dectsten for the three Ittle{ yTestimony of B. C. Thames with E. A. Laute. R. Fisher. L. Senger. J/ c. Testlesny of D. C. Thomas with E. A. Lowle. R. Fisher L. W. ft. Smith and J. 39. Merrif t.
- proposed haandments to price.
W. 31. Smith and J. M. Iterrttt. Amendments to price.Andersen rson Act Relating to lialver of Defenses." Hearings before the Joint Cennittee Act Relating to Malver of Defenses Meerings before the Joint Comettlee g.' on Atomic Energy. 89th Congress June 1966. Superintendent on Atomic Energy. Sgth Congress June.1964. Superintendent of Documents. GPO 1%6 page 120. of Documents. GPO 1966. page 120. 4 !I 12 ' Enclosure 1 12 i - OLb NsJ ~ 1-b i 6 ww s +w-s-u w .n ms e,--, .em s -mo ve- ~-,r,e e-r -ve. n x
P ~ ~ e (1590-01] (1590-01) Island accident. That occident would not have exceeded the proposed dose I Regulatory Fleutbility Statement la accordance with tim Regulatory Flemtbility Act of 1980. 5 ,have been found to be en tuo under the proposed or under the entsttag regulations. ( U.S.C. 605(b). the Casselssion hereby certif tes that this rule, if pronutgated. ~ Mm MOUCN ACT STAimi will not have a significant cconomic tseact on a substantial number of The ympeted rule _centales no new information collection tequirements small entitles. This proposed rule could affect the muelear44ebil447 subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501'. et seg.). leiurance undentd ting. pools-and tha II.S. Ca=ar===at. Thess.mou1 M e
ca=*ft'='= = d a redletten dose equivalent to the thole body or any orgen in encess of 100 rods during the course of the accident. ,Avenege, (2) Offstte property having a valse of $2.500.000 is contestnoted with radioactive metertels in escess of the levels in st40.84(b). The valuetten 106 5 t: "a" . St4--- shall be based en mortet value taking into account the rette of assessed value/ ' get- - -2tk. W L merket value la each tem essessment jurtsdiction. 9;000-- -S te,cos.w e.. 1 (3) tuployment less of et least 25.000 person-deys has occurred. (2) Offstte property he'ving a value of $2.500.000 or more segnases Valuetton shall be based on eartet velve taking inte - 15 decentemenee4on account the retto of essessed value/merket value in each tes essessment l jurtsdiction. 15 EM 4 - ~ =. ~~~-w w ---r--- w - + ~ <. w v -a. __..m [1590-01] II590-01) (3) te,1oyment loss of et least 25.000 person.ders has occurred. (4) - t.ecsetten of et least 100.000 person-ders has occurred es a resvit .of en evacuation ordered by e State er 1 ecol offlctal with the authority to (4) Evacuation of et least 100.000 person-days has occurred. ( mene such an order. Fee the perpees of this regoletten the eveemetton period Dated at Washington. DC this day or 1982. v111endwhentheevacustjenorderis. rescinded by.this or another responsible effletel b tt. Is determined that the evacuated For the Nuclear Seguietory Commission. ores may be reoccupied. Deted at Washington. OC this - day of 1983. ~ 5ennel Chilt Secretary of the Commission For the nuclear pegulatory Quietssion 5amuel Chilk. 5ecretary of the Commission b 16 4 O. 9 .g-OLD ^1Etd i .i I 1 i ~ l 4 1 t 4 4 i i .i 1 i t 1 't l ? i l ENCLOSURE 2 1 l I ) I 1 l 4 t i t e I. 1 i I .l r 4 i i 4 1 l 'l l l f I- ~. . -,., ~.,- g Department of Energy Washington-D.C. 20545 i JUN 2 71983 Mr. Hal Peterson tiuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Peterson:
On June 17, 1983, a meeting was held in your office to discuss the proposed i NRC changes to 10 CFR Part 140, Subpart E, " Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrences." The DOE participants were: W. Burr (consultant) W. Savage J. Thiessen E. Vallario This letter will serve to confirm our comments to you regarding the proposed changes. 1. The dose parameters listed in proposed Criterion I strongly resemble the limits specified in Part 20 which apply as acceptable limits of exposure for routine operational purposes. As originally conceived, the intent of the Subpart E was to provide a system to come into effect "only where the discharge or dispersal constitutes a substantial amount of source, special nuclear or by-product material or has caused substantial radiation levels offsite." In this context paragraph 140.81(1) dis-allows the application of occupational standards by stating in part "The various limits in present NRC regulations are not appropriate for direct application in the determination of the extraordinary nuclear occurrence...for they have been arrived at incorporating a significant 4 safety factor." We believe that to tag the ENO dose criterion to occupational levels could present serious problems in particular by bringing.into question occupational standards otherwise thought to be i acceptable. Further, in view of the connotation associated with such a i change, we envision the use of EN0 levels approaching occupational standards as providing a firmer base for compensation claims in radiation injury litigation. We further note that the numerical basis i for the change, i.e., EPA Protective Action Manual has no official status, and as such provides no more credibility then the Criterion as originally conceived. 2. The unit of dose specified in Criteria I and II is not defined. Is it effective dose equivalent, committed effective dose equivalent or dose equivalent? This information is needed tu determine the actual reduction in the proposed criteria from that of the existing criteria. ~
i f l I 2 a [. j j I ] 3. We note a substantial. change in Criterion II., The original Criterion II l 1s based,upon acute radiation injury while the proposed change l l eliminates injury and establishes.a requirement based on average dose to j a population. For almost all of the: listed average doses proposed, l ~ assuming a reasonable uniform distribution of dose ~in'the stated l 4 population, acute radiation injury would not be expected;'there would: however be an increased risk of late effects. Risk and injury 'are not-l the same, and to. base the " Waiver'of Defense" and immediate financial 1 1 mstitution, on risk would lead, in our view, to insurmountable i problems. There are other problems with the use.of average dose as. 1 proposed.. Each set of exposed population and average dose in the. i proposed. table gives a total of 10,000 person.l rem to the particular-population. If the ICRP risk factor for. cancer of.10 per ren.is~used as - an estimate of. all fatal malignanciesf added to the population. then for j the 10,000 person rem the estimated excess cancers occurring ~ sometimelin: i the future would be one. Since the same total population dose is used 1 3 . by.NRC.for, each case, then the number of excess cancers estimated for ' i each case would be the same. If.this approach is followed, it could be [ argued that the table should'also. include 50,000 pe' sons with an average r j dose of 200 millirem, and other sets. If you accept linearity of. dose .j response, then the risk to each of-these populations in terms of:the number of excess cancers expected:in. that: exposed. population:is the ~. .l same. This. appears to.be.a substantial weakness:in the proposed change. l 4 I In sunsnary, we believe that the radiation Criteria I and -!!: as currently? stated in 10 CFR Part 140 are still most appropriate for the. Extraordinary i Nuclear Occurrence. To the extent that the TMI event should be considered in the context of. change to Part 140 we believe that the NRC proposed change j l to Criterion II on economic loss is. adequate.. ( i I We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these views with you. Should you-1 - require further details on our conenents please le.t us k { l E. J. ad ari 4 j Group ~ Leader Health Physicsi j. Radiological Controls' Division cc: -J. Deal. EP-342-J. Maher EP i R.-Davies.-EP-30 l' J..Thiessen, ER-71 1 ) W. Savage, NE-13 W.LBurr,DP-3.1 q l r -m..
- ~
,;_2_ 1
k O e 0 i J t ENCLOSURE 3 3 1 a l l i I I I 1 l l i j-r - +
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" (ENO).
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 are designed to simplify the administrative criteria used by the Comission in making an ENO detemination and to avoid the problems encountered by the Comission in applying the existing criteria to 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 other persons indemnified as to such facilities. DATE: The coment period expires on Coments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given unless the comments are filed on or before ADDRESSES: All interested persons who desire to submit written coments or suggestions in connection with this proposed rule should send them to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, 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, 1
[7590-01] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: H. T. Peterson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301) 427-4578. 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 and electric utility funds totaling over $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 or the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Congress attempted to remove this obstacle in 1966 by amending the Price-Anderson Act to require the waiver of certain defenses by an indemnified person when the nuclear accident magnitude " triggered" the ENO criteria. When the Commission detennines that a nuclear incident is an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" within the meaning of the Act and the Comission's regulations, the waiver of defenses provisions contained in the insurance policies and indemnity agreements implementing the Price-Anderson system are activated. As provided by Section'170n(l) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the waived defenses include: 2 l
[7590-01] (i) Any issue or defense as to the conduct of the claimant 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. The waivers of defenses, once triggered by an EN0 determination by the Commission, relieve the claimant of having to prove negligence by an defendant and of having to disprove defenses such as contributory negligence. Whether or not an ENO is declared, however, a claimant would still have to prove: (a) personal injury or damage, (b) monetary amount of monetary loss, and (c) the causal link between the claimant's loss and the radioactive material released. The term " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" is defined by Section 11(j)oftheAtomicEnergyActasfollows: The tenn " 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 i to be substantial, and which the Commission detemines has resulted or probably will result in substantial damages to persons offsite or property offsite. This provision clearly calls for a two-pronged determination: (a) substantial offsite release or substantial offsite radiation, and (b) actual or l prospective substantial offsite damages. This section also requires the j Commission to " establish criteria in writing" for application of these tests to specific events. 3 il..
i The Comission's present regulations were established in 1968(33FR 15998) and are found in 10 CFR.140.84 and 140.85. Consistent with the' i statutory definition, for the Comission to determine that there has been an ENO, tne Commission must find that both substantial releases 'of radioactive materials or substantial offsite doses and substantial injury or substantial damages have occurred.(both Criterion I and Criterion II must be met).. The language of the regulation especially that related to. Criterion I, is rather technical and precise.- CRITERION I Criterion I relates to whether there has been a substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactiv~e material offsite, or whether there has been a substantial level of radiation offsite. Criterion I calls for such a finding when radioactive material is' released from its intended place of confinerent or radiation levels occur offsit'e and either of the'following findings are also made: That one or more persons offsite were, could have been, or a. 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 1 (3) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from. food or-from land surfaces. 4 t ..s. ..w.
i ..a ~ E 4 b. (1) As the result of a release of radioactive material from a reactor there is at least a total of any 100 square meters of offsite property that has surface contamination. 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, E. (2) As the result of a release of radioactive material in the course of transportation surface contamination of any offsite property has occurred. The contamination must show levels of radiation in excess of the values listed in column 2 of the following table. 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 Alpha emission 3.5 microcuries per square 0.35 microcuries from transuranic meter per square meter isotopes Alpha 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 through not more per square centimeter of than 7 milligrams total absorber) per square centimeter of total absorber)
- The maximum levels (above background) -observed or-projected, 8 or more hours after initial deposition.
If Criterion I is satisfied Criterion II must then be applied. CRITERION 11 Criterion II is satisfied if anl of. the following findings is made: n (1) The event has resulted in the death or hospitalization,- within 30 days of the event, of five or more people located offsite showing objective clinical evidence of physical 5
u m v.; injury from exposure to the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of the reactor's source, special nuclear, or byproduct material; o_r (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; o_r, (3) The Comission 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 such events. The term " damage" refers to damage arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of the reactor's source, special nuclear, or byproduct material, and shall bt based upon estimates of one or more of the following: (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
- use, (4) Financial loss resulting from protective actions such as evacuation appropriate to reduce or avoid exposure to radiation or to radioactive materials.
II. Problems in Application The accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, on March 28, 1979 uncovered several problems in applying the existing ENO criteria in 10 CFR 140.84 and 140.85.- The Comission's detennination that the accident at TMI was not an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 1980 (45 FR-27590). This determination was based in part on NRC staff report NUREG-0637, " Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission from the Staff Panel on the Comission's Detennination of an Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (EN0)". 6
[7590-01] 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, Spring' eld, Virginia 22161. Basically, there are problems with the existing ENO criteria. These problems are: 1. Several of the dose criteria for " substantial releases" in the present regulation were formulated in part to be consistent with the then effective Protective Action Guides. Since 1968 the Protective Action Guides have been reformulated at lower dose levels. 2. The current Criterion II for " substantial injury" requires objective clinical evidence of radiation injury. However, tests for evidence of such injury are not necessarily conclusive proof of radiological injury. For example, psychological stress can manifest some physical symptoms similar to those associated with acute radiation injury; therefore, they may not be useful. 3. Monetary damages in Criterion II were difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate accurately in a timely manner. For example in the EN0 determination i for the Three Mile Island Accident, costs such as evacuation payments were evaluated and tabulated. However, many damages such as diminution of property I values and business losses required court adjudication before the proper compensation could be awarded. Proposed Criteria As noted above, the statutory definition of an " extraordinary nuclear occurrence" in section 11(j) of the AEA requires ENO criteria that reflect two conditions: (1) substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactive materials l 7
and (2) substantial damages. Like the criteria they would replace, the proposed criteria also require two separate determinations. Similarly, 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. However, the proposed regulation seeks to over-come the measurement problems encountered in applying the present regulation for " substantial damages." Consistent with this purpose, the proposed criteria focus on things that can be readily counted or estimated within a relatively short time following an accident. PROPOSED REVISED CRITERION I Criterion I is a mechanism for determining that a substantial release of radioactive material or radiation offsite has occurred. Currently Criterion I specifies a 20-rem whole body dose to one person offsite with higher values for specific organs. The proposed regulation would lower-these levels to a 5-rem whole body dose with corresponding. organs doses. This proposed modification has been selected to be numerically consistent with the Protective Action Guides proposed by the Environmental Protection O and those issued by the Food and Drug Administration _/. This ensures 2 Agency that any nuclear accident which would have warranted protective actions will be found to constitute a substantial release of radioactive materials and will srtisfy the first condition for an EN0 determination. UEnvironmental Protection Agency, " Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear. Incidents" EPA Report EPA-520/1-75-001 (Revised July 1979). 1 2] Food and Drug Administration " Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human Food and Animal Feeds; Recommendations for State and Local Agencies," published in the Federal Register en October 22, 1982'(47 FR 47073). 4 8
, ~ ~ [L y The proposed dose levels for Criterion I, which'would ' define levels 3 " substantial releases or substantial offsite doses". for. screening purposes, are in the range of the occupational dose limits and hence could be regarden.. s as too low to be' viewed as being "substantiah" However, these dose' criteria-are substantially above ths doses to the general.'public1 expected from normal operation of NRC-licensed facilities ~as limited by 120.105 of 10 CFR Part 20, and in that sense. constitute criteria for " substantial? releases."- ] i . 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'.,.."i This focuses' attention Ifor the-1 EN0 detemination, on the actual measureable consequences = of:the accident itselfL .l rather than to hypothetical postulates.of possible' exposure. i 1 l The surface' contamination levels in Criterion I will not be changed l l as those levels are consistent with proposed' emergency response levels. j The existing procedures in 1140.84(b) are inexpensive a'nd: can.be perfomed' l rapidly. Although more sophisticated measurement techniqJes: are available 1 and specific radionuclide levels could be measured, the existing simpler.; ~ tests provide adequate indication of contamination' levelsifor an ENO ' i determination. 1 i i PROPOSED REVISED CRITERION II Criterion-II. which defines substantial damages, would'be. changed \\ extensively.- Instead of the p' resent 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 l: 9 - Enclosure 3 l- ~
[7590-01]' y9 0'OQ s readily available within the time frame for an 9 For each of the monetary requirements, the .1 is assumed to be equivalent to a loss of $2.5 million. .s in the present EN0 criterion as the amount of loss to a dividual which would constitute an ENO. The Commission no believes it necessary or useful to specify different amounts of cary damages depending upon the number of people affected. Proposed Criterion II (1) accounts for human injury. The level of a 100-rad radiation dose to five or more people is an indication of potential " substantial injury". This would replace requiring " objective clinical evinnce of radiation injury" to five people or. the death of five people. This requirement would substitute physical-measurements for the vague " objective clinical evidence of radiation injury." Many symptoms associated with high radiation doses can also be exhibited in cases of general stress adaptation and could 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.
- Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses 'to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part.50, Appendix I".
Available from Director Division of Technical Information and Document Control. UC'iRC, Washington, DC 20555 10 :- l
.. _ - ~ _ -~ -[7590-01]. The present monetary values for property damage in Criterion.II would be replaced by things that could be readily counted or estimated within a - i relatively short time following an accident, such as tax assessments, numbers of people unemployed, and numbers.of people evacuated., LIn Criterion II-(2),' the assessed value of property requiring' decontamination is used;asfan'index of damage.- Criterion ;II (3)-is based ~upon 'an assumed loss '(toithe person directly l affected and others)' of $100 per person-day of, lost;amployment..In Criterion II (4) a cost of- $25 per person-day,for evacuees is-used to arrive 'at the~ numberi of evacuees equivalent to the $2.5 million loss. s III. Petition for Rulemaking i In a petition (PRM-140-1) to th' 'NRC, the Public Citizens ljtigation, e Group and Critical Ma'ss Energy. Project requested that the' accident at - the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit NO. 2 be found to;be an ENO.s i i This portion of the petition was considered as"part of the ENO ' etennisation d 'l already initiated by the Comission. The Commission-later detemined-(as H published in the Federal'Reoister on April 23. 1980 [45 FRl27590]) that the~. 4 Three Mile Island Accident was not an ENO as defined in the Atomic ~ Energy Act and the Comission's regulations. The petitioners also requested that the Comission-make the criteria for determination of an ENO more.in-line with the intent of Congress. Notice of receipt of the petition and. a. request' for public coment were published in the Federal Register on August 28, 1979~(44'FR 50419). One: public coment was received regarding the ENO criteria. The commenter, an official-of a nuclear utility, believed.that the current criterialfor detemining an ENO are reasonable. The comenter-stated that Congress intended that thel waiver of-defenses be limited to incidents.resulting in'significant injury:or - 11
[7590-01] loss and that the current criteria are consistent with this. The comenter 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 I insurance coverage. The Comission believes that the existing ENO regulation is consistent with the Act. However, based upon the experience during the Three Mile Island ENO detemination, the Commission believes that the proposed ENO regulation is more practicable than the present regulation. Thus, while the proposed reglations revise the standards against which an ENO detennination will be made, they retain the dual detennination of the statutory definition, i.e., there must be a substantial release of radioactivt 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 Comission believes that the proposed criteria will not affect insurance premiums. During the 1966 Congressional hearings on the ENO, representatives of the insurance industry testifiedb 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 effect on premiums. The proposed modifications to the ENO criteria would not have changed the outcome of the EN0 decision for the Three Mile 3fTestimony 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, GPO 1966, page 120. 12
u nu-v y Island accident. That accident would not have exceeded the proposed dose criteria or the surface contamination criteria, and consequently, would not have been found to be an ENO under the proposed or under the existing regulations. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT The proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44U.S.C.3501,etseg.). REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION In accordance with the Regulatory Feixibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 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. This proposed rule could affect NRC licensees of production facilities and utilization facilities and the two nuclear liability insurance underwriting pools. The companies that own the production and utilization facilities and the two pools, who are the only ones in the United States writing nuclear liability policies, do not fall within the definition of a small business found in section 3 of the Small Business Act,15 U.S.C. 632, or within the Small Business Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part 121. LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 140 Part-140 - Extraordinary nuclear occurrence Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Reporting requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553 notice is hereby given that adoption of the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 140 is contemplated. 13 l
v.,,v v y PART 140 - F1NANCTAL PROTECT 10N REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS Requirements 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. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); 15140.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 5140.6 is issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). 2. In 5140.84, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows: 5140.84 Criterion I - Substantial Discharge of Radioactive Material or Substantial Radiation Levels Offsite. (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 af any one.of the levels in the following table: TOTAL PROJECTED COMMITTED RADIATION DOSE ORGAN DOSE (REMS) Total Body 5 Thyroid 15 Bone marrow 5 Bone (surfaceor mineral) 15 Skin 50 Other organs or tissues 10 Exposures from the following types of sources of radiation shall be included: (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 14
[7589-01] (3) Radioactive material that may be taken into the ' body from its occurrence in food or on tctrestrial surfaces. I i i (4) Radiation from sources internal to the body. 3. - In. 5140.85, paragraph (b) would.be deleted and paragraph (a) would be revised as follows: t ; c.. 5140.85 Criterion II Substantial Damages To Persons Offsite or l 3 Property Offsite. . i Nfter the Comission finds that an' event' has satisfied Criterion I,- -p a the Comission will determine that the event has resulted or. will probably result in substantial damages to persons offsite or property offsite when i l any of the following conditions are. satisfied: [ (1) Five or more people have' received a _ radiation l dose equivalent.to. the. whole body or any organ in excess of 100 rads during the course of.the accident. (2) Offsite property having a value of.$2,500,000 is contaminated with-radioactive materials in excess of the levels in.5140.84(b). The valuation-shall be based on market value taking.into account' the' ratio 'of. assessed value/ market value.in each. tax assessment jurisdiction. (3) Employment loss of at least 25,000 person-days has occurred. I i 15 Enclosure.3 i l i mE w eu
- w 11
- -{
[7590-01]
- i (4) Evacuation of'at least 100,000 person-days has. occurred as a result of an evacuation ordered by a State or local official"with the authority to' make such an-c-ier.
For the purpose of this' regulation, the evacuation period will end when the evacuation order ~1s rescinded by'this or another responsible official and when it is determined that the evacuated areaLmay be reoccupied. Dated at Washington, DC this-day of-1983. For the Nuclear' Regulatory. Commission. 1 Sameul J. Chilk-Secretary of the-Commission i f B i u 4 ..}}