ML20052G523

Summary of Comments on Petition for Rulemaking PRM 20-10

ML20052G523
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/23/1981
From:	NRC
To:
References
FOIA-81-485, RULE-PRM-20-10 NUDOCS 8205180433
Download: ML20052G523 (45)

Text

.- ~.... -...

~.2:..

=.:a....

-............. a.v G*-

=

Summary of Comments on CURE Petition l ',

[ Docket No. PRM-20-10]

[ ] '-

Commenters Support Denial 0. r' S

1.

Iowa Department of Environmental Quality X

-r i :.

2 W an Diego Gas & Electric Ccmpany X

3.

i S

4.

_0maha Public Power District X

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Energy Facilities l }'

Siting Council X

t S

5..= State ' Liaison Officer to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ki' from tha State of New Jersey X

jf 6.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae on behalf cf X

gj

. The Detroit Edison Company E.

. Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.

. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation

. Omaha Public Power District A

. Power Authority of the State of New York

. Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.

. Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 1

7.

Duke Power Company X

7.

s 8.

State of Indiana Board of Health X

3.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation Water Reactor Divisions X

h.

5 10.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (Bureau of Radiological Health)

X 11.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

X 12.

General Electric Nuclear Energy Projects Division X

W Not applicable to PM-20-10 (Health Physics Society) 14.

Commonwealth Edison X

T 15.

State of Kansas Department of Health and Environment X*

3 16.

Iowa State Commerce Commission neutral

.5 17.

Public Utility Commission of Texas X

J 18.

State of North Carolina Utilities Commission X

D 9.

J I l19A.

Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (S)e 19A)

State of Nebraska Department of Health (Divisisn of Radiological Health)

X M

State of Indiana Board of Health (Same as #8)

J 21.

State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation X

S 22.

State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation X

J 23.

Arkansas Department of Health X

24.

Tennessee Valley Authority X

25.

Consumers Power Company X

J 26.

State of Connecticut Power Facility Evaluation Council X

J 27.

State of Michigan Office of Governor X

5 28.

State of California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission X

M Not appifcable to PM-20-10 (U.S. Environnental Protection Agency)

In addition this commenter stated the following:

"We could support, of course, a petition to clearly require any NRC licensee to notify the impacted State immediately in the case of a significant release as defined in Part 20 or the licensee's license.

Such could, of course, be greatly clarified by proper response of State and licensee to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E at the beginning stages of the licensing process."

8 Enclosure "C" D

8205180 % 6 g

a0

.c.

IO ~.

.<, f i

nm iowa department of environmental quality

~h

. fin January 12, 1978

.. 3 e.o.

s

• *c

".M -x _fo 3pg y s

at JAN2 61978 > ;4 Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission c"-,d ** 7 W

S 171LE Street NW g

3 Wasisington, D.C.

20555

.A s s

ra

Dear Sir:

l For some time the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality has been concerned about the reporting of abnormal occurances involving the release of radioactive materials from nuclear power plants.

The current rule,'.10 CFR 520.403, does not require direct notification of state regu-I latory agencies and does not require sufficiently prompt notification of such agencies -

Neither does actual experience indicate sufficient notice.

In a recent simulation involving the Cooper Station in Nebraska, the Iowa Department of Environnental Quality did not receive notice until three hours af ter the mock occurance.

Thus the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality supports the petition

^

of Citizens United for Responsible Energy (CURE) for revision of 10 CFR 320.403.

Sincerely, Larry E. Crane Executive Director LEC:DCB:mf i

...l W

3'J?C ~.ic.' aware Ave. P O. Bnt 3326. Des lAO:nes, Iown 50316

• 515'2E5 9134

80k ' SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTR:C

.OMPANY PO. BOX 183' SAN DIEGO. CAUFOANIA 92112 (714) 232-4252

8. W. COLSTON weCf PMS3f%7 R.E NO Pno;t;7 us%4*.tytt.f February 16, 1978 s)IW p

g i

=

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary DY Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5

Washington, D. C.

20555 6

3 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch 6

Il cm

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Docket No. PRM-20-10(43PR3448),

Re:

In response to the notice (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 17,

[

Wednesday, January 25,1978 - Page 3448) of the Filing of Petition for l

Rule Making, San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits these coimients and urges that the petition be denied.

1.

Proposed requirement "that all abnormal incidents be reported immediately" (within 1/2 hour) and proposes an extremely restricted definition.

f f

Such a requirement is unreasonable and unwarranted. Cur-

[

rent regulations define as reportable " abnormal incidents" many events which pose no hazard to the public health and safety. The overly restrictive definition ignores the

[

fact that r.inor releases of " radioactive products" are j

routinely permitted by current regulations precisely because they do not constitute a public hazard.

Since fossil-(

fired power plants release " radioactive products" to, the l

environment, it is inconsistent to require nuclear power plants to comply with such a rule, when the fossil-fired plants release greater quantities (and of more hazardous l

natu're-e.g., coal release alpha-emitters).

l L

2.

Request that "the utility involved" be required "to I

report immediately to the director of a designated state agency - within 200 miles."

. ! I* i l

This requirement may be feasible in small eastern states, but

(

in larger western states, clearly would require a local office of the "srate agency" or would prevent siting of a nuclear

,,~l plant more than 200 miles from the location of the " state agency." Either interpretation is clearly beyond the authority._ -. (

of a utility to impose and not within its control to assure,.,,,_

.&..:.a.t:nwe..afuhrp....s s

i au ouvrevna.nwucn enconesem l

' ' ~

-- --~

f-i N

^

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk February 16, 1978 compliance.

Further, it-is inappropriate for fedhral direc-tives to place requirements on the interactions between any state and a company operating within that state.

T, If the NRC were to agree to the points raised, it would be con-furring'in the presumed basis that, without such modifications to existing

{

regulations, there is, indeed, a significant risk to the public.

As NRC records of reportabid occurrences show, only an insignificant fraction o,f such reports disclose safety-related events which eculd be deemed as a poten-

)

tial hazard to the public health and safety.

On that basis, it is clear that the petition is an over-reaction to a perceived (not real) situation i

or concern and is without merit.

Sincerely, l

~

m l

B. W. Colston Vice President Project Management

/jle r

cc: LBernath e

4 9

e e

1 6e m

em

cM-.,[.

... - w

.,\\-i. v Omaha Public Power District

' W.P 187". HARNEY E O M A N A. NEeRASMA 68102 m TELEPHONE S36.4000 AREA CODE 402 O3 s

February 23, 1978

1. A I A /

NET NutaBER 4

PRM.20 /O(y3gyy m nUi.E p

vm Mr J a=uel J. Chilk OW MAff 7197PM Secretary of the Codssion 8-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=sission

%C N~ %

Vashington, D. c.

20555

• }

E Deer It. Chilk:

tb

-o N

The Omaha Public Power District respectfully offers the follow-ing comments in regard to the Petition for Rulemaking, initiated by the Citizens United for Responsible En'ergy (CURE), dated December 27, 1977, concerning reporting of " abnormal incidents".

The petition re-quests that " abnormal incidents" be reported to appropriate Directors of the Cneksion and State public health organizations one-half hour after occurrence.

The one-half hour time limit is extremely unrealis-tic.

It does not give facility operating personnel adequate ti=e to evaluate a potential problem and may in fact interfere with required prompt corrective actions.

Further= ore, Technical Specifications and emergency plans of all nuclear facilities currently specify reporting requirements which as-sure that significant releases are reported as soon as possible.

These have been reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis and are designed to engure that no undue threat is posed to the health and safety of the public. These Technical Specifications and emergency plans specify the exact nature of an incident *hich must be reported, along with attendant reporting requirements, to State and Federal agencies.

The Petition for Rule =aking requests that all " abnormal incidents" be ic=ediately reported.

The definition of "abnor=al in-cident" is not adequate or conpjete.

The definition may be construed to include any radiological gaseous or liquid release made from a facility without regard to resultant total absorbed doses to the general public.

In conclusion, the District cont.nds that implementation of the subject Petition for Rulam khg would not serve the best interests of the utility or general public and would result in extensive unneces-sary reporting and/or notifications.

Sincerely.

.'.G w.

'Y.E.Short Division !!anager Froduction Operations TIS /7.JM/BJE:Jem LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae cc:

g......

h THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS g

ENERGY FACILITIES D &\\

(

M t

SITING COUNCIL N

T *,k MICHAEL UKAKIS cov a

CHRISTINE B.'SULLIVAN

" ^ " ' "

• DOOf..IT NUi.'.3ER 3

p-.;:me;.;; ;.(.* :: M':1 4 ~l{t{3ff,$tj4 gh$

!c-flP%

U h

o' d) gh Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary

~*

\\;

gj United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8

Washington, D.C.

20555 06 I

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch W

8" March 1978

'Re:

Docket No.

PRM-20-10 Petition for Rulemaking Mr. Chilk:

e We support the petition for a regulation which would require early notice of incidents at nuclear generating stations and which would also require notice to,a designated state officer.

Such early notice can avoi'd the hearsay problems which we have experienced recently because slow incident reporting generates public concerns and fpars which may not be warranted by the actual inci ents.

'\\

\\

h EDW J.!DAILEY Di or t

\\

EJD/mk L

,,;,_ 3.

e.::.'. 3.

N 3

Room 1413 One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-1136

--.-w-

3

.:s 7 3.;+.,

(

i STATE or N EW JERSEY WW DEPARTi.* ENT o r Pus tic UTit:Ti Rich ARD B Mh Gt.YNN March 10, 1978 co--....o c=

N ewAn n. N J.

4WF

,ch?

Secretary of the Commission 6)v f

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission g

Washington, D. C.

g

.gh Att:

Docketing and Service Branch jf' OA

%. [k,..]g f

i g,.

-s,

A Re:

Docket PRM-20-10(ft3Q pyg b,

i Gentlemen:

I submit these comments in my capacity as State Liaison Officer to the Nuclear Regulatory Cn-micsion from the state of New Jersey in conn'ection with the above-captionec matter.

My cobments are_sy own and not necessarily those of the executive of this state nor tne adW Jersey B6ard of'PYil51ic Utilities.

[

_. - - - ~

The citizens United for.R6sponsible Energy have filed a petition with the NRC' seeking to amend the Commission's regulation regarding the reporting of nuclear incidents.

The proposed amendment would require that all abnormal incidents be reported within one half hogr to the appropriate NRC Regional Office Director.

l

" Abnormal incident" is defined as one which involves the release of radioactive products to either the air or water.

The rule sought to be amended, Section 20.403, requires immediate notification to the ap'propriate Regional Office Director of "any incident involving bypro-duct, source, or special nuclear material.

. which may l

have caused or threatens to cause" certain well-defined or property damage in excess of $100,000.'perating week exposures or releases, or the loss of an o The rule further' requires notification within twenty-four hours of other well-defined incidents of a less critical nature.

The rule does not require notification of cny state agencies.

The petitioner also requests that the rule be

~

~

Jkq&

.....a

.O 3

m 2

amended to require an immediate report by tee licensee to the director of a designated state agency responsible for public health and safety which is within 200 miles of an abnormal incident.

My comments go to this proposal.

j The State of New Jersey has in place a procedure requiring the utilities operating nuclear generating stations to give notification of all incidents of an abnormal nature to designated state agencies.

That procedure works well and has the cooperative support of industry and govern-ment.

I see no jurisdictional bar to any state imposi g I

a reporting requirement upon a, utility in this connection should it choose to do so'.

The public health and safety of the titizens of a state is an adequate support for such a reporting requirement.'

That being so, I see no reason for the NRC to impose a reporting requirement which would be uniform f' r o

all utilities in all states.

Local conditions would un-doubtedly vary.

Local incidents, depending upon the i

nature of the generating station and the relat.ve concern of state officials, might be of sufficient variation from state to state so es to make a uniform national reporting requirement inadvisable.

So long as the states have juris-diction to require the reporting of incidents to state and local officials, as'I believe they do, the need for NRC-mandated reporting to states is obviated.

I hope that these comments will be of assistance to the Commission in evaluating the issues raised in this l

matter.

very

yours, bb2hb Richard B. McGlynn Commissioner

}

\\

cc:

Robert Ryan, Director Office of State Programs, NRC, Washington. D.C.

_l

e EBOEU F. L AM B. LElBY 86 M Av.f AE 17s7 N STRECT,N.W.

WAs MinoTos. D. C. 2 O O 36 Tg<t.eoom t 30 3...t T.O 3 c..........

" ^ " * ^ " ' " * " " ' ' " ' "

• SEif,t ^c'. !a:t" Loc..m *^"i"8:: l:"::"ti.Lc.

5"" g.'"* Piio"ct i"-

u...............

" * " ' * * " ' ^ " " ' " * "

• 15"i'"* cytt!.".u..

^

, a......

Ef ?.o,.?e *. " "

$2:!: 2:" !A"RE.,.s...

^

" * * " ' * ^ "

c ??tct!"#22cm

";/^t::I"i..

7 oE"m 'o*k E"E "fu *.

d*"ic' fc"t'AI!Inf."~*

5"!!.y#dffMA 7st'A'"Jes?"""'^"

EE"Ito s.'E=E$UE EiYA Ea"2sEE'c'aa iouc d,* ". E *t'cE E E E ".* " *

"^fEA8.'*c.s,;7yg,,

,g,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

EEYt"d ** Es "t Ea*2 s3 A'sc"t A*.I'v"to#E' f step o=c asa e...iio "I* "c's* I. 'fd ="s*8....

'ES!."n'o's.'"EENrfiU

• c.e6c anoaess EEE*='iaSs8m"O E^Eil. "ao ?*.'c'lt es

<t.wi=. scw vo= =

Ri ;'. M s7ao,

?! '"at :*iuf"

"^ '

era =.n

• ncssocar raatacas waswinciou orrect March 27, 1978 3

.ao-artco to inc oistnicT or cotuneen man 4

Secretary of the Commission et

1. ' h [

,==

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9

Washington, D.C.

20555 l

q' Attention:

Docketing and Service 3rm ch i

Q 8W 9

of PRM-20-1(33FR 3M N'*

Re:

i

_, 3

Dear Sir:

On January 25,

1978, the Nuclear Regulatory r."immission

(" Commission")

published in the Federal Register notice of receipt of a petition for rulenaking filed by Citizens United for Responsible Energy (" CURE").

43 Fed. Reg. 3448 (.1978).

CURE's petition seeks an amendment of 10 C.F.R. 5 20.403 to require that notice of all abnormal incidents (defined to include the release of any radioactive products to the air or water without regard to quantity), be provided immediately both to the Commission and to "the director of a designated state agency".

In response to the Commission's notice, we submit the following comments on behalf of The Detroit Edison Company, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.,

Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Omaha Public Power District, Power Authority of the State of New York, Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

The fundamental flaw in CURE's petition is that it would require the reporting of the release of any_

radioactivity, without regard to the,qu a nt it y of the

m release.

Current regulations permit the release of i

extremely low levels of radioactivity for activities regulated by the Commission.

Licensees a r_e presently prohibited from releasing to unrestricted areas amounts of O

radioactivity in. excess of those limits specified in

)

Table II, of Part 20.

10 C.F.R. $ 20.106 Appendix B, (1977).

Moreover, releases from nuclear power reactors in g.-

amounts lower than those specified in Table II are to be kept "as low as is reasonably achievable".("ALARA").

10 C.F.R. 55 50.34a, 50 36a (1977).

Numerical guidance ALARA standard is provided in Appendix I interpreting the to Part 50.

Those low level releases must be monitorad,by licensees and the totals reported to the Commission semi-annually.

10 C.F.R. 5 50.36a(a)(2).

i In

contrast, the reporting requirements of 5 20.403 are triggered at significantly higher release levels.

Those requirements are designed "to give the

[ Commission) prompt notice of potentially serious acci-l dents involving licensed material in order thait appro-priate steps may be taken to protect against further hazard to life or property."

22 Fed. Reg. 3389 (1957).

It.is simply inconsistent with the purpose of 5 20.403 to trigger emergency reporting requirements upon the release l

= 2 e of the extremely small amounts of radioachivity now permitted under normal operating conditions.

CURE has provided.no basis for its request to establish the thre.sh-old reporting requirements at zero,'despite the require-ment of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.802 that persons initiating ruitmak-ing proceedings set forth "the basis for the[ir] request."

.For 6his reason alone, the Commission would be fully i

~

justified in denying the petition.

Moreover, CURE's proposed amendment, if read literally, would establish a reporting requirement only for* releases of radioactivity, and thus would eliminate the requirement for emergency reporting of radiation exposure to individuals.

Currently, 10 C.F.R. 5 20.403 requires such reporting if designated levels of radiation are received by individuals.

Consistent with the purpose of that regulation, the emergency reporting levels are i

orders of magnitude greater than the low levels of radia-tion currently permitted by 10 C.F.R.

$ 20.105 (1977).

i CURE has likewise provided no basis for eliminating those r

requirements.

CURE bases its petition, in part, on "the absence of rules requiring any communications with state i

l agencies within close geographic proximity."

Section f

I

~

~

.m but that is 20.403 presently contains no such requirement,

~

not to say the requirement is non-existent.

Section 50.34(b)(6)(v) of the Commission's regulations requires l

that each application -for an operating license for s.

g utilization facility contain an emergency plan within the required final safety analysis report.

production or Detailed requirements for emergency plans are contained inem 2*

Appendix E to Part 50.

In essence, i

for the nctification of appropriate 10 C.F.R.

contain requirements State and local agencies in cases of emergency.Thus,' imposing the l

Part W App.

E, TV.IV A, C,

and D..

5 20.403 is redundant.

Moreover, l

l same requirement under as well as local, agencies may vary'

'the responsible State, in organizational for each site.

These '. diff erences responsibility for dealing with emergencies can best be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the emergency l

plan rather than through a generic requirement for report-ing to a " designated state agency".

" full hearing" on its

. Finally, CURE seeks a amendment.

This request is ambiguous because the Commis-requested is unclear whether CURE is requesting that sion institute its customary notice-and-comment. rulemaking it or whether CURE is requesting the Commission use addi-Assuming the Commis-trial-type procedures.

were to grant the' petition and institute a rulemak-

tional,

_ e 3 ing proceeding, we submit that the notice-and-comment sion.

procedures ordinarily employed by.the Commission are fully

.. adequate.to address any issues raised by. CURE.

.Neither

.thersubject matter in itself nor the terms of CURE's i

l need for. any additional procedures petition. indicate.theThere would thus be no reason to treat this requested rulemaking proceeding any differently from the i

- in this case.

vast majority of other Commission proceedings which utilize only the notice-and-comment format.

the foregoing reasons, we respectfully the petition for rulemaking should be denied.

For Should the Commission decide to institute a rulemaking i

submit that proceeding, we urge that notice-and-comment procedures be l

employed.

Respectfully submitted,

f Y

b kh h,

--.,-g 7

l m

s i

l DUKE Powrn COMPANY f

l Powen Bentotxo l

422 SocTa Caracu STarzT. CuantoTTE. N. C. ze242 w.w w o. namen.

n.

March 24, 1978

=

SCE Pats 40 test it 6 t o-o = c:Anta704 S?ta= Paoowcwoe.

373-sos 3 DOCKET NUMBER

@I PRM -gjo(qypRJ e/pg)

I

'ETITION RULE 4

Secretary, 6 gh UTS. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 p7 Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Y [ b-

.}

L e

Reference:

Citizens United for Responsible Energy y

Filing of Petition for Rule Making FR Docket 78-1940 44P

Dear Sir:

The above referenced petition for rule making requests '. hat the Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission amend its regulations in Section 20.403 of 10CFR Part 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation", to requite all abnormal incidents to be reported immediately (within one-half hour) to the Commission. The petitioner proposes to define " Abnormal Incident" as any incident which involves the release of radioactive products to either air or. water.

Section 20.106 and Appendix B, Table II of 10CFR Part 20 establish limits on quantities of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas.

These limits are conservat!ve and assure that the health and safety of indivi-duals in unrestricted areas is not adversely affected by routine releases of radioactive material.

Section 20.403 then requires immediate or prompt (within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) reporting of incidents which significantly exceed Appen-dix B, Table II limits and which, therefore, could potentially impact public health and safety. Reporting as requested by the petitioner is not supportable with regard to public health and safety and is not logistically practical.

In summary, Duke Power Company is of the position that the petition for rule making be denied as unnecessary and unjustified.

Very'truly yours, Alm.; ll 0 L,./ '

William O. Parker, Jr.(

Acknowledged by card.3. 3/,hR,,,,,,,,,

DCH:ge

-t'&

101 9

a

/p ( h 4:

gr

O' S TATE

=

INDIANA

['7.

~ _ -

= -

= - =.

j

(!I

' " I INDIANAPOLIS

__= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH

)N.

.,__ m_

1. ais Address Reply to:

AN EQUAL OPPORTUhTTY EMPLOYER Indiana Stawsoard of liealth 1330 West sticidpn Street Indianapotu. IN 46206 March 27, 1978' DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE _PRM-moQg344g) s YSE e

Secretary

ggNp W U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissien Attention

Docketing and Service Branch U

[

p Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Sir:

E Re:

Comments on Proposed Amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 The petition to amend Section 20.403 of 10 CFR Part 20 without limitations has little merit.

The petitioners would require that all abnormal incidents (defined as the release of radioactive products to either air or water) be reported immediately (within 31 hour3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br />).

The petitioners state that " numerous incidents occurring in close proximity to Iowa" have not been reported promptly to State officials.

No specific items are listed.

The wording would require reporting every day. Any nuclear power facility has so=e radioactive material being released (as does any coal-fired facility).

No amounts are recommended.

No dose or potential dose to people is recommended. All radiological health agencies, including Iowa's. personnel, which I have had contact with have received complete cooperation of utilities operating nuclear power facilities.

There are no equivalent regulations on other industries, and such restrictive regulations on the industry with the best safety record in the USA should not be instituted.

Sincerely, 6Y 1

m Ralph C. Pickard Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Health ec: Robert G. Ryan gew.e..m agea eycard. N. H.....

l i

l' w

Westinghouse Water Reactor en355

~

Electric Corporation Divisions

""8 W "

April 3, 1978 I

o A

WRD-LS&S-410 g

~

S TEE q

'p.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission APR 51928),10C Office of the Secretary of the Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 T,

D,i D

//

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

'b 4

Gentlemen:

Subject:

Citizens United for Responsible Energy, Petition for Rule Making, Docket No. PRM-20-10 By notice published in the Federal Register of January 25, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission invited comments from inter-ested persons regarding a petition for rule making filed by Citizens United for Responsible Energy.

The petition, assigned Docket No. PRM-20-10 urges the NRC to promulgate several new rules dealing with the notification of incidents.

The Westinghouse Electric Corporation finds no merit in the petition as described in the Federal Recister. ~Although the petitioner ref'ers to " nuclear power plants,"

the change as requested would affect Part 20 of Title 10, and thus would be enforced on the tens of thousands of NRC materials licensees as well as power reactor licensees.

The petitioner chooses to define an " abnormal incident" as an incident that involves the release of radioactive products to either the air or water.

Such a definition lacks any scope for deliberate, routine and permitted releases.

It also fails to establish any quantita-tive criteria for reporting so that strict compliance with the rule as proposed would probably tie up regional office telephones i

continuously during normal business hours with needless reports of insignificant, releases.

With respect to criteria, the petition ignors the fact that the NRC has made some value judgements and existing regulations provide, criteria to assist the licensee to evaluate accident situations with reference to their urgency.

The petitioner has l_

failed to present any evidence that the Commission's present j

criteria are defective and to justify his proposed change.

I-G D(C 1.

.~

s m

x--

r\\'

A -

Finally, the petitioner has requested an explicit requirement that a " state agency" be notified.

Assuming that the petitioner does, in fact, intend that his proposed requirements would apply to accidental releases, responses by the licensee to accident e

sitgotions are predetermined in the licensee's emergency plans.

These plans include notification of off-site agencies when such notiIication is warranted.

It might be pointed out that in view of the exponential decrease of concentration with distance, a 200-mile range is grossly excessive.

In summary, we find the petition unnecessary and technically deficient and we strongly urge that the Commission deny it.

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the Commission's consideration of this petition.

If you have any questions regard-ing this matter, please write to me at the above address or tele-phone me on (412) 373-4652.

very truly yours, A7 Karl R.

Schendel License Administrator

/slw e

e e

e e

e B

g

Q CO' qOpEA.

- e i E N Nsy.,#

u n CF

%a 43%

N n

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONM ENr AL RESOURCES BUREAU OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH

f. -

P. O. Box 2063

- Tel: 717 737-2480 Harrisburg, PA 17120

/b March 9, 1978 00CXET flUMBER gpruau EULE d(43FR 3Gp.GS) g\\ 6' #

• 9 W

Secretary of the Commission Q

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{

@R 3.b Washington, D.C.

20555

%,g,a e.g Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch M

qp,

Centlemen:

I We have reviewed the petition for rule making to amend 10CFR20-filed by Citizens United for Responsible Energy as noticed in the Federal Register of Wednesday, January 25, 1978.

The matter which seems to be at issue here, namely, timely notification of offsite agencies, is best managed by dialogue among states and utilities in the development of plans for radiation emergencies.

As the petition reads, the utility could be required to notify immediately perhaps 10 agencies of

. every ' discharge whether planned or unplanned, regardless of size or environments variables.

If that is, indeed, the intent, we cannot support the proposed amendment.

Thank you for the opportunity to corhment.

Since ly,

%7 t ow2.o //

Thomas M. Gerusky, Director TMG/fm heh %~

g,y.c::hd;td by t:s-O

.S.7

~ ~. - --

7. 7 ET N'T. m J

.mmEru wmg

. /

> i ; Conschdated Edison Company of New York. Inc.

4 Irong Mace. New York. N Y 10003

[y.1;3.*

, 9 Telephone (212) 460-3819

.(

ca A

t,6

.ohy

~

e 4

'o \\

e t

March 27, 1978 ~

.3 tO ft Q

• 1 O

~*. -

w SecrAary of the Commission D

1. h.Wz g

/

s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b

a Washifigton, D.C.

20555

..s

Subject:

CURE Petition for Rulemaking re rotifications of Incidents per 10 CFR 20.403 (Federal Register, January 25, 1978) bear Sir:

Consolidated Edison Comeany of New York, Inc. respectfully submits the following comments on the subject Petition.

1.

The basis for the subject petition is unclear, and the petition contains erroneous statements.

Regulation 10 CFR 20.403(a) already requires immediate NRC notification for releases, radiation exposures, lost operation time, or property damage in excess of certain specified levels.

2.

The definition of " abnormal incident" set forth by Citizens United for Responsible Energy (CURE) as an incident which involves the release of radioactive products to either the

- air or water, would necessitate immediate NRC and state agency notification for all plant releases, routine or other-

' wise.

Releases within Technical Specification (license) limits are not reportable, nor should they be.

The effects of such releases have been evaluated as inconsequential in establishing the limits.

Should releases exceed Technical Specifications limits, the propoced half-hour reporting re-quirement would not allow time for any kind of evaluation nor possibly even determination of release path.

3.

CURE is in error in referring to "the absence of rules re-quiring any communication with state agencies...."

Gen-erally, nuclear plant emergency plans require notification of and cooperation with appropriate government (including state) agencies upon occurrence of an incident which could affect the health and safety of the public.

10 CFR 50.34(b) requires an applicant to include in its final safety analysis report (FSAR) plans for coping with emergencies.

10 CFR 50 Acknx.uzca b =e.d.......;......:

f i

'~

_2 _

~

-Appendix E requires, among other things, a description in th,e emergency plan of contacts and arrangements made or to be made with local, State, and Federal governmental _

agencies with responsibility for coping with emergencies.

-JE' 4.

Regarding the notification of other states, we feel that this should be done by either the NRC or a State agency E

after an assessment of the data and determination of the ne.ed for such notification.

5.

In general, a short-time notification requirement, such as the half hour proposed in the petition, can only lead to confusion, the potential for jumping to false conclusions based on information that is, at best sketchy and incomplete.

We appreciate this opportunity to present our views to NRC.

We hope these comments will prove helpful.

Very truly yours,

. '. /

/den s

William J. Cahill, Jr.

Vice President WJC:pt GID e

6 e

E a

b3 BAL 6

ELECTRIC NUCLEAR ENERGY PROJECTS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,175 CURTNER AVE., SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 9512s MC682,(408)925-5040 MFN431-78 O

n March 28,.1978 d

g

'b gh DOCXET NU l.TB J

g(h A

P' 'W-/ '/3FR3'/d/3) llN PETITION P.ULE 6\\

. h

'S U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission g

Secretary of the Commission g

Washington, D. C.

20555 g

Attention:

Chief, Docketing & Service Section Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

PETITION FOR RULE !% KING TO AMEND 10CFR20.403, "NOTIFI-CATION OF INCIDENTS," BY CITIZENS UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY General Electric has carefully evaluated the subject petition and is pleased to provide the following comments.

The petition filed by Citizens United for Responsible Energy, which would amend 10CFR20.403 to require that all abnormal incidents be reported imediately, is without merit and lacks any supporting infor-mation to substantiate the need for such an action.

Part 403(a) clearly defines situations which are serious incidents and which require immediate notification.

Serious incidents are self-evident, and little time is required to detemine if such an incident has occurred. Therefore, serious incidents can be reported pursuant to the "imediate" criterion of Part 403(a).

Part 403(b) also clearly defines situations for 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification.

Such incidents are not necessarily self-evident, and ample time is required by skilled personnel to determine if such an incident has occurred. Therefore, incidents as defined in Part 403(b) must necessarily be reported pursuant to the "24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />" criterion of Part 403(b).

In conclusion, to arbitrarily require imediate notification for all abnormal incidents (including relatively minor ones) is inconsistent with the sound criteria of Parts 403(a) and (b), and such an overreaction will not serve the public or the regulatory agencies.

MnmWd by card..

9

~

~

.3 i

e GENER AL $ ELECTRIC Chief, Docketing & Service Section Page 2 March 2 8,1978 9

GE would be pleased to provide any further information on this issue.

Rdbett J. Murillo, of my staff, may be contacted at (408) 925~3406 in this respect.

Very truly yours, h T3 Glenn G. Sherwood, Manager Safety & Licensing GGS:mh/107-108 cc:

L.' S. Gifford, GE R. B. Minogue, NRC D

e e

GI.

E e

[

l m

s o

/

\\

H EALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY SOCIETY j7 s.)

CARL M. UNRUN President-Elect v

BATTEL'.E s

n Cu...._':......

Pacific Northw est Laboratories

• PETECN iiUiE P l 40 t/3 4 h

Battelle Boulevard N

Mar @ 27, 1978

,,/

g Richland. Washington 99352 L (

Telephone:(509) 9 S-2503M, i.g N

s;j e

f 1y

(*fV W j

li e.- w q

Secretary of the Commission g+

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

&g p

gg g g p, 1

Washington, D. C.

20555 p.,.: e r Attn: Docketing and Service Branch D

linds 3

t Gentlemen:

C y

I offer for NRC consideration my plan to control radiation dose for new radiation workers.

The plan is simple.

It precludes an individual receiving more than 3 rem per quarter regardless of the number of employers.

It essentially prohibits " hiring for exposure" practices.

The plan is stated as follows:

No employer may permit an employee during his or her first quarter of employment to receive a planned radia-tion dose in excess of a dose prorated against 3 rem per quarter for time of employment.

For. example, a new l

employee in the first week of employment wculd be limited to dose of 3 rem per quarter divided by 13 weeks per i

quarter or 0.23 rem.

For the second week of employment, an additio'nal 0.23 rem, or if no dose was received during the first week, then a dose of 0.46 rem could be received.

After the first quarter of employment the currently appli-cable dose limits would be applied.

l This low initial Hose accumulation plan is consistent with a good radiation protection program.

One would anticipate the need for radiation work orientation and training programs during the first few weeks of employment; hence, new employees should not be immediately available for high dose rate radiation work assign-ments.

This plan reduces paper work and potential errors that might result from such paper work for very short term employment.

""~~ Md k f 'I d M E 72/

M -/ (,,

• z..:. c. u :.; y.. g l y -,.

e

. ~.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 29, 1978 Page 2 I dPhot believe the nucleai-industry nor the regulators of the indugtry should permit " hiring for exposure" practices..

The

" hiring for exposure" practice is entirely foreign to good radia-tiona rotection practices and the "as low as reasonably achievable" concept for controlling radiation exposure which both the industry and the NRC claim they support.

Sincerely,

~

J h.

Carl M. Unruh President-Elect

/ss 8

e em o

E 6

r m

• .i One First N'tiont na. Chicago. Cinois

/

l

.D 7 Accress Riply 13: Post Othca Box 767 l

'. g Chicago. Illinois 60690 1

\\N f

f

)

DOCKIT C. :'.~ IR k

gb$

A

~

[l g@%

DETITICN LL. Pi?M --20M43%

l March 22, 1978

&fh, b

'c2 j

i Mr. Samuel J. Chilk I

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

(

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch f

Dear Sir:

Commonwealth Edison Company submits the following comments in respect of the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Citizens United for Responsible Energy

(" CURE") on Decem-ber 27, 1977.

Notice of the CURE petition was published in 43 Fed. Reg. 3448 (January 25, 1978).

The petition urges that all " abnormal incidents" be reported "immediately" (within one-half hour) to the appropriate NRC Regional Office and to designated state agencies within 200 miles of an incident.

" Abnormal incidents" are defined as those which involve release of radioactive products to either the air or water.

~:'o the extent the petition urges immediate report-ing to the NRC and designated state agencies of incidents affecting the health or safety of workers or the public, it merely duplicates existing reporting requirements.

Under 10 CFR S 50.34, Appendix E, and Reg. Guide 1.101 (Rev. 1 March 1977), licensees must have emergency plans which provide for notification of state and local authorities in addition to the NRC in the event of such incidents.

Commonwealth Edi-son's Generating Stations Emergency Plan, for example, provides for immediate notification of the NRC, the Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency and, where approp-riate, the Iowa Disaster Services.

To the extent the CURE petition attacks the dis-tinctions made in 10 CFR S 20.403 between releases which must be reported immediately, those'which may be reported within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and routine releases which are only re-ported periodically, we think the petition shows a lack of perspective.

In the first place, petitioner gives no reason

.:.e.h:::;:;.:mm n=-

e

~

~

C:mm nwntth Edisdn

\\

\\

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 22, 1978 Page Two O

why it is inappropriate to distinguish between releases of i

1%dioactivity for reporting purposes on the basis Of their significance.

More importantly, we think it is absurd to treat every release of radioactive material, no matter how trivial, as an emergency.

To do so would in.undate respon-sible federal and state agencies with a blizzard of essen-tially' meaningless paperwork.

This blizzard could possibly I

blunt the impact of reports.of a situation which should cause alarm and delay response times to a real emergency, should one ever occur.

Respectfully submitted, O@

Cordell Reed Assistant Vice President I

4 5

l l

l I

i l

l I

.s l

l

s..-

, TM gs* 4 c

• acP

% State of Kansas... nosear v. eennerr. co..rnor n

BIPARTHIRT@F IlaLTI alB IMDB@HIIT t y

DWIGHT.~. METZLER. Secretary Topeka. Kansas 66620 W -. '. C :.......... c

/[

March 15, 1978 g\\ 1%

E T!TiCl RU c PRM k3FR3t}il8) g j'

at Robert G. Ryan, Director 2

b

1. f Office of State Programs W [//'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

,6 Washington, D.C.

20555 g

Dear Mr. Ryan:

io This is in regard to your letter of March 2,1978, bringing to our attention the Petition for Rule Making published in the January 25, 1978, Federal Register Docket No. PRM-20-10.

As an Agreement State, Radiation Control Program Director and Chaiman of NCRCPD's group responsible for reviewing proposed changes to Part D of the Suggested State Regulations which contains many of the same types of reg-ulations as 10 CFR Part 20 I am very interested in any proposed changes.

t After reading both the Federal Register notice and the petitioners letter-the following comments seem unavoidable.

1.

While it may be, as a11 edged by the petitioner, that there have been difficulties in communication

'with a plant in or near Iowa the approach suggested by the petitioners to correct the problem ignores some very basic truths.

(a) The term radioactive proddet apparently is not defined, this deficiency and tenor of the petition would appear to require any user of any radioactive material to call all designated state agencies witi..a 1/2 hour of any release to air or water of any radioactive material.

This rather broad approach simply l

requires that' each licensee call the appropriate director every 1/2 hour so long as any living biological system exists on the property be-cause it happens the metabolism of all living systems produces a respired air a radioactive element of carbon (14 ).

C The petition to be seriously considered must be changed to deal with the naturally occurring radio-active materials which certainly require no special attention at least at 1/2 hour intervals.

a 3cs._c,kn; cud.. d...J e e

,9

. 3 7

Robert G. Ryan Page # 2 March 15,1978 (b)

Such change would also be required for facilities, such as hospitals, or clinics where patients and laboratories must as a i

matter of providing modern medical care re-lease to air and water small quantities of

~ adioactive materials used in medical dia-r gnosis and ther.apy.

(c)

Finally, the petitions lack of any specific levels makes interpretation both vague and very likely impossible.

2.

While as a Director of a Radiation Control Program who is intensly interested in a very prompt and accurate notification of any incident at any facility whether licensed by us or NRC I would demand that such notice be given when only a significant release had or was occurring.

i Such can only be 'done if the plant, the state and NRC make the notification requirements as specific and clear as possible.

Regulations without limits cannot accomplish this important task.

Whether the current Part 20 limits are specific enough or established at proper levels might be called into di:.pute but at least they constitute a set i

of standards.

The petitioner would have NRC discard them i

'and fail to replace them with anything usable.

3.

We could support, of course, a petitidn to clearly require any NRC licensee to notify the impacted state i

l immediately in the case of a significant release as defined in Part 20 or the licensees license.. Such l

could, of course, be greatly clarified by proper l

response of State and licensee to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E at the begining stages of the licensing process.

~

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

i Sincer ly, 1

DIVIS$NOFENVIRONMENT

,. - s LO h

i

. G,eNTd" W.. Allen, Di rector Bureau of Radiation Control 9

_____________-____--,----e.----c

.~.

W 4[#'

,7

'. w.

IOWh STATE COTHERCE COTH. ISSIDX.,

i c. - -...

, MAURICE VM NMRMD QQT

. FRED H. MOORE

~

s MARY F. HOLSTAD

^ j yf/

j.

DES MOINES, IOWA 50319 cm ri-secreiary:

DEAN A.BRILEY March 13, 1978 5

ed1%

4 UCCX2T 'f:Ui.OER c}.

j.

PETITION RULE PRM 4-/0(ysfzggt/h W; o)Y ;

6 9

g,s g N @. f*d Robert G. Ryan, Director a

Office of State Programs D

e 6

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr. Ryan:

In response to your March 2 letter, the Iowa State Commerce Comission has no opposition to the proposed rule on reporting requirements for abnormal incidents. Our neutral position on the proposed rule reflects (1) doubt that any change in the reporting regulation is necessary, and (2) confidence, after having done some checking, that it will not place an excessive demand on the resources of eitSer Iowa's Department of Environmental Quality or any of the Iowa utilities with nuclear facili ties.

Thanks for your consideration.

[

Sincerely, f fsfe w c.d h

@$~h Maurice Van Nostrand 4

Chairman

~

MV/hb i

I uuna mcw: --.. Hl7............ <

l VALLEY BANK UUILDING FOllRTil.t-n'.sI.VIIT 9TRrrTt

~

sWI,5f..WQ/:

Y%

Public Utility Commission ; v qc) 4

. q.,.,, e i

e.

of Texas

_ George M. Cowden Chairman Garrett Morris g\\ s h Gg

^ Commissi c

I l

March 14, 1978 00CKET NUMIDER

$",m;,, o R

n PRM.q)do(43FR3449)

[

gS

~

PETITION RULE Mr. Robert G. Ryan, Director tp b

[//#y f

~

Office of State Programs 6

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

Washington, D.C.

20555 g

• J-m

Dear Mr. Ryan:

In response to your letter of March 2,1978, we have reviewed the petition filed with the NRC by Citizens United for Responsible Energy.

We believe the amendment to the NRC's regulation for reporting requirements for abnormal incidents proposed by CURE in their petition has merit and should be adopted.

Since Texas will soon have two operating nuclear power plants, the release of any radioactive products into the water or atmosphere by these plants will be of great concern to tnis Commission and other state agencies.

Therefore, the immediate report of any such abnormal occurrence to the NRC and an appropriate state agency would be in the public interest.

Singerely,

{

l 1

k Gehl. Code GMC:MBL:eb i

Ackn=1cdsed by card..fl.[2......._

M

n.-

N1" &. g,Y

^

. Q n,_

>.l

\\

f hiale of Nortly 6arolinn 4

Kiilities 6ammission faleigly 27502 o, cc o, <[scutive

\\ 'Fi o accrg.

March 22,1978

~ ~ ~ '

DCC:Q i' NL..'.Lb!

@p7 PRMQe_[q3pg3 PETITION RUI.E t

[5 g

Mr. Robert G. Ryan, Director

' ['M*'W A

Office of State Programs Nuclear Regulatory Comission et. <./

Washington, D. C.

20555

' 17ry # ' '

Dear Mr. P.yan:

This is in response to your letter dated March 2,1978 requesting coments on a petition filed by the Citizens United for Respon.sible Energy requesting rulemaking to amend the Nuclear Regulatcry Comission's regulations for reporting requirements for abnormal incidences.

11e would generally support the idea of communications with state agencies and requiring utilities to report abnormal incidences to responsible state officials.

We question, however, the practicality of requiring reports within one-half hour. A more reasonable approach from our persgective would be to identify the types of abnormal incidences and thsfr ootential severity and scale the reporting response time

'accordingly.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer our coments.

Yours very-truly,

/[./N L.

H hA.Welis~

M Executive Director HAW:AW:jpm i

4 b..............

r.e.

I

3c f-\\ e.1 l t

l e

a t

n m

e-or I

gNebraska Department of Environmental Control f es /.-

J. James Exon, Covernor Dan T. Drain, Director N >,

h~f'

\\

l aa h m p

. geag l

n[y g

1 t'l DOCKET NUMBER fg!

PETITION RULE PRM 437 9ygg3949

/

^

7 6 /,

-5 (1-'

/

March 21, 1978 dV"l 6

?>W 5

Roberu G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs Nuclear Regulatory Comission i

Washington, D.C.

20555

Dear Mr..Ryan:

Thank you for your letter of March 2, 1978. It was referred to the Radiological Health Division of the Nebraska Depart:nent of Health for coments.

I am pleased to enclose coments by H. Ellis Simons, s

Director of that Division of the Health Department.

We hope that these comments might be useful.

i S carely your,

Richard H. Hansen Legal counsel RE/$a Enclosure cc:

H. Ellis Simmons, Director

~.

Acknow!cd;;cd by cud..Mh....C....;.g A

k= M e

e,

=

~ -

j s

p, gli STATE of NEBRASKA

[

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH j

OlVISION OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH

,, s A

301 CENTENNIAL MALL SOUTM (3rd FLOC l

P.O. GOX 95007 LINCOLN. NEBR ASKA 68509

~

l 1402)471-2168 l

~

March 14, 1978 3

Comments on (Docket No. PRM-20-10)

CITIZENS ONITED FOR RESPCWSIBLE ENERGY i

Filing of petition for Rule Making.

I have no comment on petitioner's request to amend paragraph 20.403 Notifications of Incidents, of 10 CFR Part 20 to require that all abnormal incidents'he reported immediately (within 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) to the Director of the appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Coc=1ission Inspection and Enforcement Regional Office.

I do not concur with the proposed amendment paragraph 20.403 which requires the utility involved to report immediately (within 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) health, Director of a designated state agency responsible for public to the and safety which is within 200 miles of such incident.

This is an unreasonable, unjustified and an unworkable request. It would mean that the utility in some small states would be required to notify all health officers whose states were within a.200 mile radius of the incident.

This could take hours without any beneficial effect especially if the release is of no significance.

a

~

A more reasonable approach would be for each state to develop an Emergency Response Plan which would respond appropriately to any incident.

The communication systems of an appropriately written and..

executed plan should be able to manage any radiation emergency.

g./. [A.

Ellis Simmons, Director Division of Radiological Health HES/jkb, s

7 l

Encl.

l I

~

w....

f ',y E

.m m

g 3

STATE INDIANA f.-5.$.,g k

- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - - - - _ - - - - - _ _ --- _ _ _ = --

g

( h..'i, A.,I INDIANAPOLIS ~

v T*^-

STATE BOARD OF HEAL.TH i

Mdress keply to:

s AN EQUAL OrfoRTUNTTY EMPLOYER Indiana State Board ofilcalth 1330 West Michipa Street i

Indianapolis IN 4 '

g March 27, 1973 e

c s, s 3

l

.o' f.**

D C Cl..u._......i'.-.

i

~

,e gTl;.;; Rui.E PRM.2e_fo 9374gy

/

g Secretary y

., v..

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

(*@

Y Attention: Docketin:. and Service tranch i

(, '

.,.].,.Wh.d

':a..la:', ton, J. C.

2*.333 R h 'sj-i Lear Sir:

Re:

Con:ments on Proposed Arcend: ent to 10 CFR Part 20 The petition to amend Section 20.403 of 10 Crp. Part 20 vithout limitations has little tcrit.

'"*ie petitioners vould requira that all c'. ;:::-.a1 1.::4C: :t S *.c ed v

6.. - r :locse of rv<'tc?e 'z? - produets to cititer air or w ter) *ue reported i=r:cdiscely (vir.1:.

. sr).

Die 2

p.:titioe.:rs.-~.:e t'::t "n: a.r ::s incidct.ts eccur:1r..- in cIn : 2 r.: D..ity to Iowa" have not been reported proc:ptly to State efficials.

!!c cpecific ite:'.s are listed.

The verding would require reportin; every day.

Any nuclear power ft:ctlity 1.

% e. _.. :tivo =sterial bei.g released (as does any cocl-fired..

1_

3 aro':nts are recort:ca2.d.

o dose ar pateatic.i da-

to n. : -le is r ':- ~n!.- l.

411 ::2'-lotical ' health agencies, includin:

Tues's persennel, v' ich I here '-- ' :: :.: vith have received complete c. '

-.tica of util.;acs operst.:.:.:; :.ucicar petrer f.':i' it '...

.: r :

regulations on other industries, and suca restrictive

..lons on the lac try with the best sr.fety record in ti.c: i3A not be instituted.

S ncerely, w/./w

.alph C. Pickard N

Assistant Con::sissioner for Environaental Health P.nbert G. Ryan /

ec:

I A:kn...

v /7............

a I

,(

tLtL "

n

f.

f,...,

[' 8[h STATE OF FLORIDA i,.f i

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2562 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE, EAST MONTGOMERY BUILDING Tall.AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 fEUBIN o'D. ASKEW "PH W. LANDERS, JR.

GOVERNOR gQt s ARY p.

, _9 DCCMET NU::,:5R l Qf March 15, 1978

'A I

9 PETITION RULE ??M-Ny.je(Ip3pqq

1. $ f5 Mr. Robert G. Ryan I

99 b,-

Office of State Programs

,6 United States Nuclear Regulatory Q.

p Commission

,a Washington, D.C.

20555 co

Dear Mr. Ryan:

The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby submits the following comments on the citizens United for Responsible Energy's petition to amend the NRC's regulation for reporting requirements for abnormal incidents.

This Department supports the intent of CURE's petition but would suggest the following changes:

1.

Change i hour to one hour.

2.

Report abnormal events such as releases to the ambient air or water outside of containment within one hour to the NRC - Inspection and Enforcement office and to the responsible state officials.

1 3.

Report all other abnormal events to NRC and state officials with 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of the event.

Thankhyoufortheopportunitytocommentonthepetition.

Sincerely,

% a s.64%

Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E.

Administrator, Power Plant Siting HSOjr/mk w a.,ac e -s e; e::s. 4 (7.-

kn &T c3 ca p

\\

f f

f

.ars. muuoso. covinxon o l_

2, f

)

DEPT. O F ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION rouma.nihtaasnrir M

March 24, 1978 COO:'.E i;. --;_..

PETITION RULE '" -3.-/o(43 fay /pg h

wp&

?4$h Mr. Robert G.

Ryan

((

b

- s Director, Office of State Programs fp

}

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.

C.

20555 D

gg y 6

w

Dear Mr. Ryan:

Cc Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amend-ment of 10 CFR Part 20 advertised as Docket No. PRM-20-101.

I support the proposed amendment of the regulations, and suggest some additional changes.

The requirement for notification of abnormal incidents within one-half hour is a good concept.

I presume that the one-half I

hour period would begin running at the time of knowledge of the incident.

However, there is some confusion in the proposal as to which state agencies would be notified.

Perhaps a more comprehensive means of assuring that the appro-priate state agencies are informed of these incidents would be to require each facility to keep a current list of those persons to whom notification must be made.

This list would be reviewed regularly by NRC, and would contain the names of those appro-

)

priate state officials to be notified.

The wording in the proposed amendment should be clarified to indicate that the appropriate state officials of states which are within 200 miles of the incident, not the state official who is within 200 miles of the incident.

In view of the fact that agencies vary from state to state, I would suggest that the designation of the appropriate officials in state government be made by the respective governors, not by the NRC, as this regulation would propose.

S h eelv. )

I st W. Mueller Commissioner M:c=d.4{j l

=

b 1

l

'o r

l r

-w 3

dMN

~

e,wi r"! nrn 9

+,1... m..u.ta i r.::

d... e..md,..

DEPARTP,1ENT OF HEALTH s

n..

s l y[qe.r s*s Qi >

l I[E

---6_i. "3 i3 wes, y,acsAu stater tirrteriti,s o s.

e..... g..Y r

!*E Ocr.

l

.q..

s i-

--w -

.. _7 DAVIO,tTOt.GovtRNOR OF AREAN5A5

"/

d

'.#*y

_e... a i

' - J*.--e,----"_-

nex c.e m sAv. a u.o oinectOe e hg7 p m

i 6 -

w

-2

,$Y. p[C s

5 March 17,1978

<T H g

n D00 MET NUi.:.;I.7 g

,3 l

=8' Mr. Robert G. Ryan, Director PETITION RULE FRM M-tr3pg,3#N Office of State Programs q

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

?0555 D:ar Mr. Ryan:

Thank you for the letter dated March 2,1978, to Dr. Rex C. Ramsay, Jr.

9 concerning a petition submitted by Citizens United for Responsible Energy on December 27, 1977.

The Department has reviewed the petition and, while it is our opinion that an improved notification system for true abnormal occurrences is necessary, theIt is su Department cannot endorse the concepts submitted by CURE.the U the Interorganizationgl Comittee on Radiological Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness, develop guidance to insure that, in the event of a true abnorma 1

occurrence, appropriate notifications to state and local governments are made in a timely manner.

Thank you for the opportunity to coment.

Sincerely yours, f

j%

David DJ Snellings, Jr., Director Division of Radiolo ical Health

)

Bureau of Environm ntal Health Services DDSjr:ef Ac!:f:3,,..,,.,,

~ 'D -

Dr. Rex C. Ramsay, Jr., Dir., ADH cc:

c.

m TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTF RITY

~

r CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ot On 830 Power Building g

.Q

- 9p APR 3 1978 4

i e

J N 40-/0h3FA.744

'@S e

1 DOCKET NUMBER Q

42 PETITION RULE Secretary of the Commission rol U.S. Nu' lear Regulatory Comission

~

c Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch 4

Gentlemen:

(

. On January 25, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) published in the Federal Register a notice of the filing of a petition for rul-king by Citizens United for Responsible Power (CURP), (43 FR 3448).

l The petition proposes modification of 10 CFR I 20.403 by imposing certain additional notification requirements upon NRC licenses. The petition alleges that present NRC regulations are " lax" and that there are no rules requiring any communications with state agencies within close geographic proximity to nuclear plants. The former is too vague to support a petition for rulemaking and the latter ignores existing i

regulatory requirements.

Regulations already exist requiring notification of state and local officials as part of the emergency plans for each licensed reactor. These are covered in detail in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

Inclusion of additional reporting rpquirements in section 20.403 would be unnecessarily redundant.

' ~

The petition defines an abnormal incident as one which " involves the release of radioactive products to either the air or water." This definition is unworkable and would require reporting the routine, controlled releases authorized by plant technical specificationa and 10 CFR Part 20 (1977).

These have no safety significance and little or no potential for public interest and would be a waste of ma: power and resources.

Defining "immediate report" to mean "within 1/2 hour" would not lH.ve adequate time in most instances to provide meaningful report and could well distract from efforts to terminate and/or mitigate the consequences of a significant radiological incident.

G A.@iidedged by card...Y.7......;....a m------

O DO.*

.-..e

L.,...

.~)

,m

~

. APR 3 1976 Secretary of the Commission

~

It is TVA's view that the petitioner has failed to provide sufficient 'uases The to justify the reassessment of existing reporting requirements.

proposed rule, if adopted, would distort the true significance of routine controlled releases to the environment and would not enhance protection of the public health and safety; accordingly, the petition should be denied.

Very truly yours,

\\

. E. G111 eland Assistant Manager of Power cc: Executive Secretary Advisory Commitree on Reactor of Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1717 H Street, NE.

Washington, DC 20555 Hr. E. A. Sra1=y AIF, Inc.

7101 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, DC 20014 h

e e

b

=

p.-...

.m l

/

h Consumers y

l

@QYl6[

DOCKETTL.. -,.

l X-

.j C0mpBDy PETIT'ON w_-

..pggg s

y { {.. h.*qq.

om.... = w... w.~.., u.~..

.....,s ui.~.e o soi. 4,.. co...ir v...o s s o p'5.\\

March 22, 1978

//

i~:u..

Y.s

%. -\\

\\ m # ## y % g

~,~.-? l i *j Sale 13-78 w,

Sb.h.,..

dd/

Secretary of the Cocxtissicn

,M/

Att: Docketing rnd Service Branch eD /

.. \\ W U S Nuclear Regulatory C d ssion Washington, DC 20555 The following ccxuments ccncerning the Petition for Rulemaking by the Citizens United for Responsible Energy (CURE) to amend 10 CFR 20.ho3 are presented for ycur ccosideration:

1.

" Standards for Protection Against Radiation," 10 CFR Part 20, provides adequately for reperting of inci.ients.

The prescribed time frames for required reports are cc=mensurate with the magnitude of the incident and properly take into acccurt the need to carry out on-site procedures and to provide information to insure the continued health and safety of the public.

2.

The requirements for incident reporting to outside agencies are adequate 3,y

~ " '

previded for by the facility Emergency Plan required by " Licensing of

. Prcduction and Utilization Facilities," 10 CFR Part 50. -

7:. -...,.'

~

5. J After 'an incident, efforts to contain any release within the site tcundary cast be the primary. action. fAlthough.the reperting of these incidents is

._,,,,_ importantj it should not be allowed to deter frem the necess,ary immediate actions.

For the reascns given above, it is recommended that this petition be denied.

Please consider these ec=ments during deliberations on this matter.

l

[g),jntff $

N Terence J Sullivan Executive Engineer CC: CJMaynard/RAWells/SEHeuell n 7.O Z '. - ~ - Y

...... a:

PAScalay JIHcuGhteling BIBuckman/DAEixel K<.'Sinderman JLBacon

5..

l-

....,s.,

.~.

v.

59,ti

.:,. ~

., n :. : ~,..

., 7.;.,

f.??~ 9 a t! %

nu R v..cn.m c: w:.~.. u., v.. u

'E-: i >

f'

e.,. - q,n u J.tn: G h a 09:.-

. ra. ; 04 !15

~. :'

Trt u.h %.: n Q$-

y4 N i f. '.... -

QC:q7 ;,y;...~

' 9-/0b38AIW PETmdN RIJL

~~!"**~

mr.y AwtGintu cri, sis w u

}! arch 23,1978 MRs RaIAW CLRr:S

W TO%fMISS10NE.et.$

.t;tRT J. K L t3 4N j

1 ANLEvJ. pac Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission Sec'etary of the Ccomission r

utst.

i.AR*

Washington, D. C. 20555

.atoJ.Doocv

!ORTIMER A. GELsTON Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch

.wes a ;;ossr..;.t et021A Dis l.LE l'oSD Re: Petition for Rule }!aking filed by Citizens United for i

cus c. T.ur 8

Responsible Energy to amend the NRC regulation " Standards-for Protection Against Radiation",10 CFR Part 20.

Dear Sir:

The proposed change would require utilities to notify the NRC and the director of a designated state agency within one-half hour af ter an abnormal incident that involved the re-j lease of radioactive products into either the air or water.

g I fully support this change.

It is something that will result-in only a very minimal cost to the utilities. On the other hand, the change will help to provide timely information to those responsible for public safety and environmental decision making.

Af ter some recent abnomal incidents at Millstone Point Generating Station in Waterford, Connecticut, Covernor Grasso e.xpressed a concern over the time it took for the utility to notify the appropriate State officials.

I think that the proposed change addresses this concern.

I therefore strongly urge the NRC to implement this proposed change.

Yours very truly, N--

Mary nne Guitar Chairman MAG:RW:ge

'C-l cc: Jane E. Magers l

em.

m

. T.s T E tsI*.1 t r !l GsN 4

4 un.u :.. ec:.c.-s=

.^ @ ' I

• cr 1.s x s n x a

/. Sv-i

,/, ydY gi,.j$

g l

w:u.iw c.un.u n u

[d g

cocKET HO.rx.:

s PETITION RULE---C I- @ -/

OS i

}Nk'? ).

- - March 24, 978 4_

g ep.;,3

'h b

/

%WA Mr. Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 t

Dear Mr. Ryan:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Citizens United for Responsible ;

Energy (CURE) petition to rescind 10CFR20.403.

The petition suggests that the present rules are " lax", and, theref ore CURF. petitions the Commission to strengthen those rules.

It is not clear whether the petitioners intend to the proposed changes to be as inclusive as the present 10CFR20.403 in augment f

its entirety.

I Assuming the CURE intends to " rescind" 10CFR20.403 and replace it only with the i

amendments as proposed in the petition, such amendments would actually weaken the existing rules, which are considerably more inclusive.

Certain provisions of the existing rules must be retained.

For exauple, extant provisions for Without the reporting releases of radioactive material would be retained.

the hea information deleted from the present rules the NRC's efforts to protect and safety of plant workers and the public would be jeopardized.

form 10CFR20.403 requires the reporting of releases (to the envi In its present cent) on the basis of established standards.

Normal plant operation includes some radioactive materials releases below technical specification limits for the operations of the plant.

Releases are monitored continuodsly and control 1G within permissible levels.

Should these levels be exceeded, an abnormal Permissible amounts of radioactive gases are emitted C occurrence would exist.

Th the atmosphere on a continuous basis from operating boiling water reactors.

the proposed definition by CURE for an " abnormal occurrence" lacks significaned releases that exceed the technical specifications, of f

Any unmonitored releases, releases of significant public health hazard, are currently reportable to the r

NRC.

. _.,..<h...........:-

^ - - ~

m o f

e-.

~

m s

e Mr. Robert C. Ryan Page 2 March 24, 1978

~

. The selection of a 200-mile radius for notification of minor incidents would not only lead to unwarranted alarm but would also require the generation and The in!plementation of emergency response plans of unmanageable proportions.

copt of such activities would not be cowensurate with the accrued benefit.

For example, a plan for D. C. Cook plart it.corporating the 200-mile notificatio: '

criterion would require consideration of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, i

Indiana, Ohio, and Canada.

If CURE is concerned about the significance of releases in amount.s less than those now reportable to the NRC, new limits should be suggested and justified.

Since January, 1977, Michigan has had Peacetime Nuclear Incident Rules which 4

require notifications from nuclear power plant utilities.

Before that date l

information was received on a cooperative, voluntary basis.

In addition to the' i: mediate reporting of nuclear incidents, notification during normal working

.i hours is required for public interes,t occurrences such as facility start-up or shutdown and radioactive material shipments.

Written copies of all licensee to the NRC are also submitted to the Michigan Department of event reports sent Public Health.

Promulgation of the NRC rule to require state notification by a:

utility as proposed by CURE with their definition of " abnormal occurrence" is not a practical or a meaningful requirement.

For states which have no established notification procedures and vould desire to be notified, it would seem that making additions to the existing 10CFR20.l.03; and 10CFR20.405 would have some merit.

An additional consideration on the part.

of the States is the need for enabling legislation and appropriate rules to obtain the necessary authority to write and implement response plans.

Sincerely, Jonathan T. Cain Special Assistant to the Governor j

JTC:jw cc: Maurice Reizen i

}

l i

i i

1i I

i e

t

.i i

i

STAft OF CAuf0RNIA-THE RE5oVRCES AG f

EDMUND G. RROWN JR., C.

ENERGY RESO!IRCES CONSERVATION g

AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION u.

l 1811 HOWE AYtNUt SACRAMtNTO, CAtlFORNIA 9342$

(916) 322-6937 April 4,1978 00CKET NUI.TE e

4

.2_4DV0(f3FASW PETITION RULE E l-0 Q7 :

Secretary of the Comission

' 7

, gMg\\

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i

Washington, D.C.

20555 9'

Attention: Docketing and Service Section Cp 6

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the opportunity to con:nent on the petition by Citizens United for Responsible Energy (CURE) regarding the proposed zulem*4ng to amend NRC Regulation Section 20.403 This section deals with reporting zequirements for abnomal incidents.

The subject petition emphMzes the need for emergency. response planning, work our Comis~sion has undertaken.

The issue bxcught up by CURE is, whether incident reporting is expeditious in light of public safety concerns. CURS questions the adequacy of 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> zeporting, and suggests one-half hour maximum reporting time for incidents involving release of radioactive materials to either air or water.

The issue is, in part, perpetrated by the confusion of what an abnomal incident is..A broad range of events are included in the definition of "abnomal

• incidents". 'Some events do not pose an imediate threat to public safety; thus the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> reporting requirement may be appropriate. Other

$ncidents could pose an imediate threat to public safety and should be reported within one-half hour.

Imediate reporting of incidents that involve a threat to public safety should be required. This requirement may already be satisfied by the emergency response planning program. Such planning is delineated in each plant's safety analysis report.

'Ihe issue raised by CURE may be more properly resolved by:

1) better defining "abnomal incidents", and 2) re-emphasizing emergency response planning.

L.

Sincerely, L

Y:= -

m F.J. Hahn Deputy Executive Director

?

FJH:rp

.c.fe,d$............,

o

,...--.\\._.

• f,

I t

.-m w,,

.g.

[d.,f17

%r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

'. v

WASHING TON. D C.

2NEC DOCKET NU?.:E:. AP'R 6

'978 cM

- (.T.Chs o

, e :.. u~~

,,. s PETITION RUD._ :

o20.]

3g y l-

a&;.

t Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

"'Y p'.. C O

f Secretary of the Coc:sission hM f g h?3g g 13ic.,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory' Comission b'

Washington, D. C. 20555 ffg y

Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch p g.,g

Dear Mr. Chilk:

A ; i.f This letter is in response to your request for coments on the proposed rule change affecting " Notices, Instructions and Reports to l

Workers, Inspections; Standards for Protection Against Radiation" published in the Federal Register,(pp 4865-4868) of February 6, 1978.

f We approve of this NRC eff ort to control more effectively the occupational doses of so-called " transient workers and moonlighters" within applicable limits.

i There may be a need, however, to clarify the basis for selection of "less than 25 percent of applicable limits" as an acceptable estimate of the dose (s) which may have been received in a current quarter.

Additionally, the operational application of such "less than" estimates for individuals with multiple employment events in a quarter should be specified in the regulatory text. Must the licensee assu=e that for a particular individual, each such "less than" estimate represents 25 percent of the applicable quarterly limit? Thus, an individual having 3 such estimates would have to be assumed as having already received 75 percent of the applicable quarterly limits.

A general question arises concerning the contents of the first full paragraph in the first column of page 4867, which discusses the effect of previous overexposures on current application of limits.

This matter also appeared in the explanatory text of another proposed rulemaking of some years ago. This material, however, does not appear in current versions of 10 CFR 20 If loss of employment by individuals solely because of receiving a few millirems over the MRC

/

.t'.

.':...c ;. r, h,,,,,,,,,,,,

/ 2O 5 (

/

2 A

\\

M

k

~

m

~

I 2

quarterly limit is actually occurring, it evidently requires the

~

inclu-ion of appropriate corrective provisions in current NRC regulations, per se, and not simply in explanatory text which does not appear in the regulations themselves.

Sincerely yours, g

/

v' i

,a

'll

[,

William A. Mills, Ph.D.

Director Criteria & Standards Division (AW-460)

Office of Radiation Programs em.

t t

s

.o e

i J

i 1

~

=

i i

s t.

I i

e i;

l

1

=

l^

g, ls a

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LAW ROCERT ABRAMS TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER Attorney General NEW YO RK, N.Y. 20047 TELEmONei (212) 488-7565 ERiiEDOM OF INFORMATION November 20, 1981 ACI REQUEST CERTIFIED MAIL

'kES hg.

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Director Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Re: Freedom of Information Act

("FOIA") Request

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to FOIA, request is hereby made that you furnish us with copies of the following documents:

1. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1975 vihich discuss, for hypothetical or actual accidents at a nuclear reactor or power plant, the possible radiation doses, as well as health and environ-mental impacts, which could occur greater than ten miles from the site of the reactor or power plant.

2. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1975 which discuss the desirability, importance, or any requirement, of having emergency response plans for areas that are greater than ten miles away from a nuclear reactor or power plant.

3. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1975 which discuss the question of whether emergency response plans should be required for areas greater than ten miles away from a nuclear reactor or power plant.

4. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1975 which discuss the desirability, importance, or any requirement, of preparing plans to ensure the safety of food and water --or the ingestion pathway-- for an area of fifty miles around a nuclear power plant.

I

\\

9 Director office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 20, 1981

5. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1970, which discuss the possible health or environmental impacts that could result if a public drinking water supply, including a reservoir, is exposed to radiation.

6. All documents dated or prepared since January 1, 1970 which discuss the possible health or environmental impacts that could result if tunnels or other under-ground passageways, including mass transit subway systems, are exposed to radiation.

Request is made for an exemption from fees pursuant to 10 CFR 3914a(a) (2).

Very truly yours, IdL gfE }/

EZ I. BIALIK Assistant Attorney General EIB/bp Environmental Protection Bureau

-