ML20055A266

Forwards Amends to Commission Emergency Preparedness Regulations Re Requirements for OLs Authorizing Only Fuel Loading & Low Power Operation & Status of Emergency Preparedness Exercises,Per Remarks at 820625 Oral Argument

ML20055A266
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	07/14/1982
From:	Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Eilperin S, Gotchy R, Johnson W NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207160043
Download: ML20055A266 (7)

Text

.

July 14, 1982 Stephen F. Eilperin, Esq., Chairman Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 In the Matter of Southern California Edison Company, et al.,

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 7 and 3)

Docket Nos. 50-361 OL & 50-362 OL Gentlemen:

In my initial remarks to the Appeal Board during the oral argument held in this proceeding on June 25th, reference was made tc amendments to the Comission's emergency preparedness regulations pertaining to the requirements for operating licenses authorizing only fuel loading and low power operation (up to 5% of rated power) and the status of emergency preparedness exercises relative to the licensing process.

At that time, these amendments had been approved by the Comission but had not been published in the Federal Register.

(Tr. 66-67). Attached for your information is a copy of the amendments referred to which were published in the Federal Register on July 13,1982(47 Fed. Reg. 30232).

Sincerely, Lawrence J. Chandler Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel cc w/ enclosure:

See page 2 I

D567 l.

l 8207160043 820714 PDR ADOCK 05000361 G

PDR

cc:

James L. Kelley, Esq.

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,

Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.

Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Daniel K. Spradlin Gary D. Cotton Louis Bernath A. S. Carstens David R. Pigott, Esq.

Samuel B. Casey, Esq.

John A. Mendez, Esq.

Edward B. Rogin, Esq.

Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

Charles R. Kocher, Esq.

James A. Beoletto, Esq.

Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Docketing and Service Branch Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel A.

f d'

p

,/

gh S

/.

D d'

?Is 0FC :0 ELD f

0ELB NAME :LChandler/kt:JRu rg DATE :7/14/82

7/14/82

.a i

$0232 Federal Regist:r / Vol. 47, No.134 / Tuesday, July 13, 1982 / Rules and Regulatio:LI 7 ?

_...f-

2. In ( C2.11(f)(3)(ii)(C), footnote

. emergzncy planning required prior to from New Ha*=pshire end Suffolk

.. 7 number 9 is removed and footnotes 10 license issuance are predictive in nature Attomey General of Massachusetts.'a'I County, New York, an Assistant -

throu6 16 and all references thereto are and need not reflect the actual state of h

n.

preparedness at the time the finding is redestnated 9 throu;;h 15.

Assistant Attomey General of New-r.;)YY

~/ f U

s.

3. In S 92.11(fj(8) paragraph A.13 of made.ne amendment to 10fB Hampshire, and representatives o!Q-M

• the cooperative agreement, the first.

50.47(a)(2) was proposed to emphasize various public groups.

sentence is amended, to read: To feed the predictive nature of the review and -

All of the significant comments:

.L.t.'d chlortetracycline to psittacine birds, to provide that licensing decisions need favoring the rule changes basicallyI "T

upon their arrivalin the facility, as not include the results of an exercise.

reiterated the Co= mission's rational prescribed in i 92.11[f)(3)(ii)[C)."

n The Commission noted that.: -:-

forpro=ulgation of the proposed ruli

~/)

(Sec.2.3: Stat. 792, as amen'dedisecs 2 and"-

preparedness connotes the actual state' changes that was put forth in the2J-

~

11. 73 Stat.1:9 and 132: (21 U.S.C.111.134a.

ofimplementabon is important during r ~ FederalRegister Notices',46 FR 81134 the life of the plant, and should be 9.. s.

and 48 FR Bn32r": W N'

e.nd134f). 37 FR :64M.284 7:38 FR19141) ?:

treated as an operationalinspection i

matter.The proposed rule change would,1 Tlie following niajoilisueing

. Done at Washington, D.C this 7th day of.

e

. l-

.Ju]y 3982.

wc;~$'M.id.p.a::. require that a full-scale exercise be speciSc comments received.Thesei-=

changing the regulations'wefe~ raised

~

0 Rd Risskr, #C --

1. W ;I ~ 2 ;~ -.-

AedagDeputy'22Si.~ dst $tolNrinary

-.3 conducted before operabon above 5% of majorissues reflect the area's of coE 5,fvjoer.--.-..y -,

<. 9.- ;;.-...,. rated power and penodically thereafter. -

of many commenters! W- ----".- - 9"P l

d a-M N.

Es Q t* M,:; c.n. The Pr Posed rule change in 46 FRQ y,,g.neNRCsSh'bm @ N.

b' r

en32 provided that in order to grant a :

undermined by the handling of the.n{l e

x2. _.o co, y a,-

_+ ;

u. a. w,..

low power beense. only a finding as,toi accident that the Com m%o--

the adequacy of c-site emergency ' W take pains to avoid even the oppeer

4.,...,

.... ~.

...--.s

7. NUCt'F R REGUI.ATOR(("---d.

y.$ ' f",{ "[,

~.'

pre es req the c,laxing safety standards.By relaxin'g

. ofre

~

y COMMISSION."4WT2:'.inar te have evalusted the. dequaey urrent emergency preparedness 1*.&,2 5.; y a

fegdados,far mom 6e 6%g"a 10 CFR Part 50 g! ra;-.-9.%'..G. - orgamzabons and plans prior to et ;.

t 4

I u..r;;. u. ::.~

D =.

stake;indeed,it is believed that the-Issuance of a low power bcense.While :- credibility of NRC is a vital c6IhponMYkh:-

"' Em2rge' cy Plannirig and. srb N

~

~

n Preparedness -m::Mnu=M:mA. the proposed rule would elumnste the of emergency preparedness.If another#

fin s or le er ations seri us a cident were to' occur ma m

IcENey NuclearRehl t c. Co= mission.'.,1.h..]-((-[.j.'h adequacy of offsite agencies' emergency yhmaybe avedge d df hi" p

/

ggg Acnow: Final Nie...-

. pla'inP and preparedness, the NRC '

truthfulness of the NRC. As thhigs i tI$h' :

review of the licensees onsite res onse

~

SUMM ARY: ne Nuclear Regulatory mechanism would necessarily inc ude substantial segments of the population,

.g' -

are sG ah,enated fesega about the.an.d cynicalin their.g,.y Commission is amending its regulations aspects of some offsite elements:>

.F

.?'

agency to interfere.:gg.,J to clarify:(1) nat emegency :.-

preperedness exercises arepart of the.

Co=munications, noti 5 cation.* <, wu sen usly wd the workabWty plans for m a n nsg an. ememen.d any,y,,

J l

'. assistance agreements with'locallag.

~

.cy n g y

' preoperationa. inspection and thus"

enforcement, fire protection; and - r.9 n medical orgaidzations ~and thelik~eg Co7mssion Responsa Socie' examples ~but not an~exclusiveM 6=mtssion published,th@

required prior to operation above 5'% of.

i raded 4

~

rzted power, but not for a Licensing" Board. Appeal Board, or Commissionf". list, where review of an applicant's "U : emergency preparedngs.s regulat2ons in.5'M

.7 emergency plan'would involve aspects.

August 1980, the. subject.cfjow power

~

licensing decision; and (2) that for U-7 of some offsite elements maybe for.nd; -

At that time the Commission di Operadng hcenses was no,t. addressed ;f issunnce of operatingliceses[.~.~.'

~

authorizing only fuello'a' ding and low ~7 in pertinent portions of10 CFR 50.47(b).

differentiate as to w' hat emergency.r

' power operation (up to 5% of rated _q.).',"

(3). (5) (6), (9), and (12).'!2 9 ~

pI""'"ng requirements would bel.c -w@,g; power) no NRC or Federal Emergency,

Extensive comments were received. -

applicable to the period of fuelloading n-.-g Management Agency (FEMA) review,"

all of which were evaluated and has now focused on the nsks assoc.s and low power testing.The Commi findings and determinations concerning considered in deyeloping the final rule.

iated +;.

emergency preparedness shall be.c

- Sommary of Public Comments.

with this level of operation and has -u "3 o ~~ e c 11...

the state or ade9uaCY of offsite x

e-n:cessary.

'ne Commission received 40le'tters chosen a level of emergency.

r.- q..

preparedness appropriate to assure there$

commenting on the 46 FR 61134 WCME DAWuly 13.1982.

proposed rule change and soletters health and safety of the public at the : rd5.W FOR FURTHER IMPO4sdAGON CONTACT: "

commenting on the 48 FR 61132 stage. In doing so, the Commission does;pi; Michael T. Jamgochian. Human Factors., proposed rule change. Manyletters not alter the high standards applicable. lam Branch. 0$ce of Nudear Regulatory.

commented on both issues within the -: to the review of emergency;: 7. E 3.<ds.d Research. U.S. Nudear Regulatory.

same letter. For 48 FR 61134. 27 letters -

preparedness at fullpower. ;. -

During low p6wert'e's'tiitg %, E -

Commis sion. Wa shington. D.C. 20555, opposed the rule change while illetters Issue 2:

Telephone (301) 443-5942.

favored the rule change. In 46 FR 81132.

there are higher risks due to'. rL.; e:Y SUPPL.EM ENTA RY IN FORM ATION: On,.

43 letters opposed the rule change, while unfa=Iliarity of the plant operators wither #

December 15,1981, the Commission 18 letters favored th'e rule change. For their particular plant and doe'to.:':::r:. n!

published in the Federal Register two both rule changes, commenters favoring. undiscovered design and constructionf:'f_..

proposed rule changes (48 FR 81132 and the rule changes were typically utilities, - defects.W.I.L d6 r.:5 u;M.C 'f,'

2 si.:4=>. a '-

Commission ResponEne n:.-

48 FR 61134).The proposed rule change legal firms and consulting firms representing utilities, and one State Co==Ission agrees that thereinay be" t in 48 FR 61134 was considered by the Commission as clarifying in' nature. It bealth department. Commenters slightly higher risks due to the plant..r '

proposed that 10 CFR 50.47(s)(1) be opposing the rule changes included operators having less experience with :

.),J modified to clarify that the findings on private citizens, local elected c5cials -

the plant at this stage and with a c.-.u, q

,.p.:. *

,y

.. M 4

a

. - - ~.z..-

..gl

., s

~?'

..{

~

s

...ya

g.

(Gd.rni Registir j Vol. w. No.134 ] Yues@ay. July 13. 1982 / RtJes and Regulations 30233

' I' M potentid for undiscovzred design and generally from the I.fcensing Borr'd *

'Combssion believes that the fmil g

. O construction defects.However.in tlie process as afiscting in cny fundament.1 changes announced herein da n:t 1 ' ~ Commission's view, this risk is way the manner of public participation-change this responsibihty or d.minish in

'significantly outweighed by several on prelicensing emergency planning any respect the protection of the public 1m other factors. First, the fission product issues.FinaUy the rule changes do not health and safety. While the I ?E inventory during low power testing is preclude public observation of and Commission understands the feelings j 4

• much less than during higher power participation in the exercises themselves expressed by these commenters. the

.h<.'.

operation due to the low level of reactor (to the extent consistent with the rules Commission wants to sta te its continued

{ Q.; 'Second, at low power there is a-

. p.ower and short period of operation.

and policies of the Commission and the ' commitment to the adequacy of objectives of the exercise) and in the emergency planning, safe operation of -

C-signi5 cant reduction in the~ required Y. capacity of systems designed to mitigate _ review and assessment critique ' the plant, and in an efficient licensing meetings held after the exercise.The process.These rule changes shouh. not

. @.the consequences of accidents compared rule changes clarify that the emergency be cause for concern about this.

gto the required capacities under full-

- preparedness exercises are not required commitment.

-- r.q h power operation.%ird. the time.

for a 1.! censing Board. Appeal Board, or -

Issue 5:Unlike some of the morel * -I ~ -

R available for takmg actions to identify Commission licensing decision.

-.technicalissues. emergency p!anninF s

^~

i

' accident causes and mitigate accident Exercises will still be required before a subject upon which the average citizen consequences is much longer than at full actual power above 5% and commercial

-is knowledgeable and can make a power.This means the operators should operation.The conduct of full-scale valuable contribution to the licensing -

_ have suf5cient time to prevent a radio. exercises early enough in the licensing proceedings.This is an important active release from occurnng. In the

= Worst' case, the additional time available., process to permit the outcome of the'

. opportunity for public participation.

exercises to be fully litigated at the F.liminating this consideration from (at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />), even for a postulated hearing is premature. Such exercises are licensing decisions in effect removes. ' t

_ low likelihood sequence.which could best held at a later time, when the

eventually result in release of the fiss,on this vital experimental evidence from"~.

i

.,5 products accumulated atlow p operating and management staff of the public scrutiny. ' '

1. + MM

_;._q. the centainment. would allow. owerinto '.' plant-who are central Egures in an -

Commission Response:Le propos'e'd":

adequate exerdse-are in place and trained in rule does not elimina te any important'

K precautionary ac.tions to be taken to emergency functions. The Commission 9,:.,.. protect the pubhc near the site.

- believes that, while the ' actual exercise ~. substantive aspect of emergencf' ".*M j Weighing all risks involved, the...

plannine frein the operating license ~~

• jj Commission has deter =med that the._

~ is not an issue in a hearing under these hearings. Whether an a ppbcant satisfier '.

rdles (except to the extent that an..c '.

7. degree o.f emergency preparedness.-..,

the requirements of 50.47(a) and 50.47(b)

necessary to provide adequate outline for the exercise may be..a.r-5 ' is still an issue that maybe raised'and # '

Involved) the exercise will be held litigated in those hearings. In cases

' protection,of the public health and safety is signiScantly less than that before full power and all signiEcant where such issues e.re raised. applicants'~

deficiencies will be properly addressed.

and State and local jurisdictions' required for hil ower operation.

Issue de These rule changes would emergency plans should be available for

~

-e te p blicPa ato in e-adequacy of emergency planning. safe to the issuance of an operating bcense.

undermine public conSdence in the examination in the hearing process prior,.

of exercises...,... operation of the plant, and the licensing In addition an outline of an exercise T D

an ass,ess e

e j

.that the rule changes will have the likely Commssion Responser As the - -

e '.-.... Commission sponser While it is true process. - - - -

should also be avallable in order to -

r..:. g.;;. p ir.,:- n-+

assure that the requirement for the, --,

d effect of limiting htigation of the success Commission noted in the Federal 4

conduct of exercises (10 CFR part 50, I

h k N'?the Commission's view that su.hof exercises in licensing hearings,it is :. upgraded Register notice which announced the ' - Appendix E.Section IV) can or will be - -

f

? assessments are not necessary to make regulations on August 19,1980 (45 FR : - an exercise should identify fundamental ~

- the kind of predictive finding on '

~ - 5540,3) that "ne [TMI) accident also defects in the way that the emergency C

. ~ -I emergency planning called for by the showed clearly that onsite conditions -

plan is conceived such that it calls into' '

' regulations prior to license issuance. ur - and actions, even if they do not cause -

question whether the requirements of10.

[

- The substantive emergency planmng.- signiScant offsite radiological CFR 50.47 can or will be met, a party to L

issues now being litigated in license..

consequences, will affect the way the :

a license proceeding ma seek to reopen,

hearings are largely focused on the 16' various State and local entities react to a concluded beanag or file a petition for t

J plam"no standards found in 10 CFR -

protect the public from any dangers

' action pursuant to 20 CFR 2.206.as -

J-

~ 50.47(b).These planning standards are associated with the accident. In order to appropriate.This is distinct from p#

,1 -unchanged by the rule changes and do discharge effectively its statutory deficiencies identified by an exercise

-O not,in themselves, require a successful responsibilities, the Commission must which only reflect the actual state of

}

_h' exercise.Thus the Commission does not know that proper means and procedures - emergency preparedness on a par

~ ~ -

Riregard the exclusion of the exercise

', will be in place to assess the course of dayin question but which do not i ~

t.w--

U,.

+., ? u. c an accident and its potential severity.

. represent some basic flaw in emergency D~im level of risk assodated with low. power that NRC and other appropriate -

plann'ng. Finally,it should be reca;d operinen has beee estmated by the stasin severat authorities and the public will be that the full-scale exercises themselves

" recent operatir.s !! cense caser Diablo Canyon.

notified promptly, and that adequate involve participation bylocal and State Q Q 1 Q 3,'", Q g '3y, protective actions in response to actual governments. Both the NRC and FEMA 3

S

. - 01.3n-01.1n each case the Safety Evaluadon or anticipated condibons can and will attempt to make sure that alllocal and

-~, Report concluded that low-power nsk is several be taken." -

• - ~

regional concerns expressed by aniers of masnitude less than full power nsk.h**

Civen that no change is envisioned in representatives of these governments f factoYas the caliber of reviews for full power are fully addressed, and that any tha u

th o operinen imply sreatly reduced risk compare with bcenses, and indeed, more resources in deSciencies brought to light are full power.

theory would be available, the remedied before a full-power license is

p. 4*

e

6 3d234 Federal Ragister / Vol. 47.'No.134 / Tuesday, July 13.1982 / Rules and, Regulations l

Issued.The underlying feelings the public beelth and safety but Commission Response:It is true that expressed by these comments, however, cbviously in the interest of the utilities.

I special bearings will not. in a typical l

are addressed in the Commission

-Commission Response: As explained case. be held following the fuU-scale Responses to Issues 3 and 4.

in previous Responses, the Cc= mission exercise. He public should recognize issue 6 The public knowledge that no is convinced that the rule changes will-that the Commission does not intend to offsite protection exists could cause the compromise the bealth and safety ofauthorize the issuance of a fun.p;ower not chaos in the event of an incident during public.The Commission considers operating license if there has been'a full.

E l

fuelloading or low power testing.

that the rule changes provide flexibilit scale exercise which raises serious and Commission Response: prior to in its liter. sing procedures, thereby ' ~y '

I significant deficiencies w*hich haie not issuing an oper ating license authorizing meeting its obligation to the public to -

been compensated for ~ nd which A..

a Iow power testing and fue!!oading. the conduct its business in a timely and.-

the fundamental nature of ther.Eo to : -

M,. nc NRC will review the following offsite efficient manner.This obligation. n c emergency plan itself. Such'a deScienEf : M elements of the applicant's emergency beludes ibe establishment of an - u.

.k: calls into question whethefrea'sonableMM pl:m.

' efficient licensing process, while not.~.t assurance may be found thatpublicM d

~.

(c) Section 50.47(b)(3). Arrangements adversely affecting the public health and health and se.fety will be'adequatelf':'iT24 for rzquesting and effectively using.,

safety..~ W. ; w.

e.. -

protected in a radiological emergencyf:AEJ d

, cssistance resources have been made,.

Issue a:The proposed rule changes..

However some deSciencies muy be ' - : r7:i crrangements to accommodate State.... contradict previous TMlpolicyy e_

found that only reDeet the actual state ofVf;gs andlocal staff at the licensee's near-site.. statements MW.P. a 6.:.. w c, preparedness which may be e'asilyWd remedied; these types of deS Emergency Operations Facility have ;~..

' CommissionResponse:In developing"

. been made, and other orgebations the upgraded emergency preparednesan.

should not delay licensing action..S' e fo e

'3 capable of augmenting the planned. - - regulations (45 FR 5540% dated Augustc-CFR 50.47(c)r" * ' d -WP'2<-476,f

' response have been identified.h.u..:

. 19.1980) one of the policy statementsW Issde 22:No' rationales~uitAinsIhe' %1~7 t

(b) Section 50.47(b)[5). Procedures -

that the Commission made was 'thatm reg'uiremint of offsite e

• M.G have been established for notification lrr onsite and offsite emergencyy um. preparedness for smallresearch reac rs ;-

'.by the licensee, of State and local..a c preparedness as w' ell as proper siting r possessing a fisslorfprod6ct bvent5ry )

response organizations and for.m.

and engineered design features are r -; equivalent to that gene d

notification of emergency personnel by -

.needed to protect the health and safetyn a large reactor while eliminating offsitef aD orgeha tions; the content of initial j of the public (and] a's the Commission

• emergency preparedness for thelarge 7;F 14 cnd followup messages to response reacted to the accident atThree Mile ~f reactor.

-e

~,- N,-- O.c2 = - T'.'

Com=/ssionRespadse<Alihoiigh.-;.J.%

,.-Q orgenizations and the public has been Island.It became clear that the-m~

.O established; and means to provide early protection provided by siting and 2 Y

research reactors present'an inherentlyg 'M

-~ 3 notiScation and clear instruction to the engineered design features must be smallerrisk than powerresct' ors they..

populace within the plume exposure bolstered by the ability to take do not possess the accident mltigation pathway Emergency Pleg Zone have protective measures during the course of hatures (e.g,large containments)..e,..

g been.sstablished.. -

_- an accident.N.a...s required for powerreactoriIn additionT; 1:i n.

(c) Section %.47(b)(6). Provisions exist-

%Is rulemaking willin no way -

,' research reactors are oftenlocatedin. 3. $ '-i for prompt communications among -c.

deviate from previous policy. statements :. high population densityareas.ltishj fu..W principal response organizations to h but in fact will add flexibility and :".Qc-therefore prudent to have an offsited1.%~i

. emergency personnel and to the public. - efficiency to the licensing processJ.'M emergency plan for these reactnrs.f4 -M (d) Section 50.47(b)(8)_ Adequate - : v Issue s-Idclude i 50.47(b)B and;.d.

- Summary: Le Commission has,:hyJ O. :

emergency facilities and equipment to r I 50.47(b)151n evaluating the.a.;-.r.:.fl. evaluated au public comments, and has 3M.]

support the emergancy response ared.. coordination of offsity and onsite u

',, also fuDy considered the risEsofmF.e L.'dd provided and maintained.8.cenc.:., ;.. emergencypreparedness.nese.^z operating a nuclear power reactorat M

Iow power. The risks of operating ar,q:

(e) Section 50.47(b)(9). Adequate methods systems, and equipment for, elements require that:r (a)(8) Adequate emergency facilities', power reactor at low power ares.j s.:n ' ~.;M r -a.. -

k/

essessing and monitoring actual or

.and equipment to support the emergency significantly lower than the risks ofm:.5 U-potential offsite consequen.es of a

. response are provi,d, ed and maintained 7 operating at full power becau.4e: firste.M n O i

radiological emergency condition are inn and

'm r r

the fission product inventory during'lovC-2-W

-1 (b)(15) Radiological emergency.

power testing is much less than during ef F use.-.

--c e

(f) Section 50.47(b)(12). Arrangements response tra.ning is provided to those higher power operation due to the lew :f..!

tre made for medical services for who may be called on to assist in an

• level of reactor power and short period M.

~

contaminated injured individuals.

emergency.: gt

.o! operation; second. at low power theres.'. * -

(g) Section 50.47(b)(15). Radiological Commission Response:%e is a aWcant reduction in the requirediG$.r.

emergency response training is provided Commission agrees with this comment. ;

capacity of syste the consequencems designed to mitigsteW-f to those who may be called on to assist See Commission Response to Issue #8.^

s of accidents comparedaAn n in an emergency

• Issue mne rule changes effectively to the required capacities underfull-M i7 Knowing that the above elements of exclude the public from the ' '

~ power operation: and third, the time _.:. M the applicants emerpncy plan have decisionmaking process on a matter of available for takmg actions to identify". -d been reviewed by NRC should assure primary public concern, and create accident caubes and mitigate accident #f' M 4 the public that, for low. power testing apprehension in the public mind as to consequences is much longer than at full.: r.Dji cnd fuelloading, adequate protective whether " preparedness" will be a reality power.nis mear.s the operators should f5 measures could and would be taken in even after a full. scale eiereise before -

have sufficient time to prevent a f.-n..@' sa the event of an accident.

operation above 5% of rated power.ne radioactive release from occurring.In.*

Issue 7: ne rule changes are public is unlikely to be granted a special the worst case, the additional timei..

D,?

fundamentaUy not in the best interest of hearing. before full-power operation is -

avanable (at least 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />), even for a

."M.4 granted a utiiity,in order to assess the postulated low likelihood sequence-whic 3

' Added in reopenn to public commenC actual state of preparedness,

..[

a

.. ~

}

g A--

. -- -...,. _.,....... - ~,, _. _,, m, n _, _

a p uuu, o u,wa

~

ths Ession products cccumulxted et lo'w licenms' casite responsi mdhtnism.

. Pudu.nt to th7 Atomic Energy Act of

..

• powerinto th2 coctrinment, would -

would n:cessardy include asp; cts of 1954. as c. mended, the Energy cUow cdequite precautionary cctions to some offsite elements: communications.

Reorganization Act cf 1974, cs cmended.

be taken to protect the public near the no:ification, assistance agreements with and section 552 and 553 cf title 5 of the site. On balance, the Commission has locallaw enforcement, fire protection.

United States Code, notice is hereby concluded that the rule changes are and medical organizations, and the like" given that the following amend =ents to technicaUy justiEable and will enhance (Statement cLeonsiderations for this Title 10. Chapter 1. Code of Federal jf.

the efficiency of the licensing process.

' rule at 2).

Regulations. Part 50 is published as a M

without adversely affecting the public With respect to his ot'her point document subject to codification.These.

' health and safety and therefore should concerning consideration in the rules are made immediately effective be promulgated.

, operating license proceeding. (Ilit is because restrictions on applicants are h

Commissinner.Gilinsky's Separate -

imp riant to hold the exercise close to being relieved.

. Op..w

- complet2on of the plant since the 7--

I dbapprove both parts of the.-

< -n operating personnel will then L on site I.ist of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

,..P and be able to learn from the

~

Antitrust. Cla s sified.information. Fire pronosed amendment.

~'e experience, and the exercise will be

,' prevention.Intergovernmentalrelations.

One part of the rule prevides that no more realistic since hardware and

. Nuclear power plants and reactors.

NRC or FEMA findings whatsoever,

procedures will be closer to completion:. Penalty Radiation protection. Reactor

-l concerning the state or adequacy of and (2) there are public meetings after siting critieria, and Reporting i

offsite emergency preparedness shaU be each drill and the state. local requirements.

, }'

necessary prior to issuance of a low ~

goveinment and other emergency people

~

j

. power license. As I stated in my do participate in these meetings and do - PRODUCTION AND UTIOZA PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF disapproval of the proposed rule, there " provide comments and criticism.

.VJ I

should be some offsite preparedn'ess.

^

"C ' FACIUTIES I

especiallyif there is to be an extended National Environmental Poh. Act ey period of low power operation -

Consideration - --., 1 f.m

. r u

1.The authority citation for Part 50 Moreover, emeriency preparedness for ~ ' Pursuant to lo CFR 51.5(d)(3) of the

- reads as follows:

f~'.,,

s - ' full power should not be a hurried llast.

Commission's rigulations, an "

Authority: Secs.103.104.iet.152.1 sites'.Z,'

. / ' minute affair.Some of the steps required environmental impact appraisal need os Stat. 93e. 937. 948,9s3. 954. 955. 958, as'

'i

.: for fuD. power should already be in place not be prepared in connection with the _ amended (42 USC 2133. 2134. 2:01. 2232.

at the low power stage.

subject final amendment because there. 2233.2:39); secs. 201. 202. 20s. 88 Stat.1243.

... The other part of the ruie'ex.clude's% is no substantive or significant 1244.1248 (42 USC 5841. 5842. 5846) imle i

g,,

eliminating an opportunity for pubhc.

Regulatory Flexil$ility'Ce'rtification ~

- jd sh bh ~

~9 consideration of emergency exercises in - environmentalimpact.

~.. -..

' d an operating license proceeding, thereby.

t Sections 50 suo.et also issued under sec....

,4 184. 68 Stat. 954. as amended (42 USC 2234). '

i participation in this phase of In accordance with the Regulatory Sections 50.200..:'1c2 issued under sec. tse.

I decisionmaking.%e exercises never Flexibility Act of l980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

ea stat. sss (42 USC 2236). For the purposes '

completely follow the plan. And this the Commission hereby certifies that of sec. 223. ea Stat. s5a, as amended (42 j

area bappens to be one in which the this rule will not. if promulgated, have a USC 2273). I 50.54(i) lasued under sec. teil. '

nuclear plant's neighbors have spe~cial significant economic impact on a 68 Stat. 949 (42 USC 2201[i)).11,0.70,50.71. '

I competence, greater in some respects '

substantial number of small entities."Ite ' and 505a issued under sec.:e10. es Stat. 950.

i than th'at of NRC or FEMA.Their - -

proposed rule changes concern a. - -

as amended:(42 USC 22c2(o)) and the laws.

comments can be particularly useful.

clari5 cation of the elements and ~~~

Mfemd to in Appendices..

m. y

'Itese need not be presented in formal ' ~ operating license for nuclear power the introductory text to paragraph (b) is findings necessary for the issuance of an

2. In i 50.47, paragraph (a) is revised.

hearings but we should have come

..., means to receive and co'1 sider them.I plants licensed pursuant to Section 103 revised. paragraph (c)(1) is rev' sed, and

~ ;,- would have modified the final rule to

. and 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of -

'a new paragraph (d)is added. All -

provide for such a brief comment period. 1954, as amended.42 U.S.C.2133.2134b.

revisions to read as follows: ~

m_.

before NRCissuance of an operating The electric utility companies owrung

- e-a license'v-7." 2 =^'~

m, and op,erating these nuclear power

- ! 50.47 Emegency plane. s-...re : r

,m,,,-

I would also note that the Simpson. _ plants af.e dominant in their se'rvice (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph.

Rep ~ ort shows that FEMA findings'will " areas, and do not fall within the :

(d) of this section, no operating license.

cause delays in only 2 plants: Shoreham definition of a smallbusiness foundih

- for a nuclear power reactor will be 7 ' and Byron 1.These delays are based on Section 3 of the Small Business Act.15 '

Issued unless a finding is made by NRC I

the applicants' construction dates. If 1

NRC estimates are used, this

~~U.S.C. 632 or within the Small Business that there is reasonable assurance that Size Standards set forth in 13 CFR Part '

adequate protective measures can and I

[' amendment would have no effect on the 121. Accordingly, therrls no significant - will be taken in the event of a I 'O ' dates for issuing operating licenses.-

economic impact on a substantial radiological emergency.

p.L

~

! t:-

.,..t-+

number of sclaU entities under the (2) The NRC will base its finding.on a mmaioner Ahearne. Additional s

Regulatory Flexibil.ity Act of1980.

review of the Federal Emergency

.3 ews Management Agency (FEMA) f ndings In response to Commissioner Paperwork Reduction Act Statement.,-

and determinations s's to whet'ier State

.,. Cllinsky's comment that "the rule

, Pursuant to the provisions of the and local emergency plans are adequate provides that no NRC of FDdA findings Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 [ Pub.

and whether there is reasonable whatsoever concerning the state or L 96-511), the NRC has made a

~

adequacy of offsite emergency preliminary determination that these,

assurance that they can be implemented, and on the NRC

~

preparedness shall be necessary prior to rule changes do not impose new assessment as to whether the issuance of a low powerlicense."I recordkeeping,information collection, or applicant's onsite emergency plans are would note "the NRC review of the reporting requirements.

adequate and whether there is e

w e

F e

Federal Registir / -Vol. 47[No.134 / Tuesday, July 13, 1982./ Rules and Regulatichs

.30236 I*

reasonable assurance that they can bc

{ 50.54 C0nditions cf licenses.

report and submittzd cs part of th1 final safety enalysis report.

implemented. A FEMA finding wiU primarily be based on a review of the (q) A licensee authorized to possess p["-(sNa'ted plans. Any other mformabon already and/or operate a nuclear power reactor of l

available to FT.MA may be considered shan follow and maintainin effect research and test reactors and fuel fac!!! ties ' <

licensed under 20 Cnt parts 50 and 70 in assessing whether there is reasonable emergency plans which meet the involve consideraticas different than those' - '.'E assurance that the plans can be

-s appliceble standards in i 50.47(b) and assodated with nuclear power reactors.

~W implemented. In any NRC licensin8 the applicable requirements in Consequently, the size of Emergency proceeding, a FEMA finding will Appendix E to this part. A licehse'e Planning Zones 8(EpZs) for facilities other' constitute a rebuttable presumption on authorized to possess and/or operate a '

than power reactors and the degree to which d';I-}

questions of adequacy and /-

research reactor or a fuel facility shau -

co=pliance wth the mquiremats of this c CA implementation capability. Emergency ' follow and maintain in effect emergency secti o and secti ns H. m. IV. and V as _,

necessary wi:1 be determined on a cas,e-by-3.

preparedness exercises (required by plans which meet the requirements in g

paragraph (b)(14) of this section and Appendix E to this part.The nuclear

- **** h**$ - ' g g-

" ~ ~' 'd}

Appendix E. Section F of this part) are, power reactorlicensee may make-the of e ating lic ch

.N part of the operabonalinspecuan

- - changes to these plans without.~

caly fuelloading and/or low power,.

T1 process and are not required for any.~

Co==ission approvalonlyif such operations up to 5% ofrated power.~no NRC. i initiallicensing decision.;,,1 m.

changes do not decrease the.,. ~.

or FEMA review. findings, or determinationf, # 2':

(b) The onsite and, except as provided ' effectiveness of the plans and the plans,- conce=ing the state of offsite emergency? U~ - 92 in paragraph (d) of this section, offsite '" as changed, continue to nieet the ~..7 preparedness or the. adequacy of and the,7,;"M emergency response p'.ns fo'r nuclear-applicable standards of i 50.47(b) and.

capacility to i=plement State and loca? -

J.

~

power reactors must meet the following 2 the applicable requirements of 1.~.. :.. offsue emergney plans, as defined-16 this "9M

~

standards:'

)'

- reactorlicensee and/or the fueliacility M.

A O-C M.--.7

~;;4 4 c.~,,. - gp..S g Appendix E to this 'part. The 'res'e' arch'". ^g,PM***'***"**$'*.# ri "" thy issuagy P

1

.P

. j

' ' (c)(1) Failure toNeNe shiic'abYe ' ' licensee may make changesto these%

1. S'eclio'n F of Appendix E to'10 CFRNk

.. ~--.

a standards set forth in paragraph (b) of plans without Commission approval -

Part50. item (b)isrevised toreadaC s 7

' ~

~

only if such changes do not decrease th.e this section may result in the y

.c Commission declining to issue'a'n,

effectiveness of the plans and theplans,;. follows: m.

3. g n,.-f;;m _ -. g,.4 ip,77,g y.,f,;,,;.-r g -,,,

4 g

operating license:however'the bl. I..,

asdangedicontmue to meet the, c.f..;..

..f.

..g.;,y.-;; m g _.3g.g.

applicant will have an opportunity to requirements of Appendix E to this part.

E For eaa site at MbMM ' y,.yi demonstrate to the satisfaction of the.. Proposed changes that decrease the Commission that deficier.cies in the -

effectveness of the approved emergency located for which the E st operating 1ie J -3 for that site 1: Issued after July 23. 2sa:... --i plans are not significant for the plant in plans shaU not be implemented without within one year before issuance of the first quer tion, that adequate interim application to and approval by the operating licens for full power and prior to.

compensating actions have been or will Commission. The licensee shah furnish 3 operation ab6ve 5% of rated power of the first;

_~1 be taken promptly, or that there are copies of each proposed change for-teactor, which will enable each state and s. 3. ; q oget compening reasons to permit p} ant. approval; and/or i.f a change is made., local govemment within the phm2e exposura-Y.

without prior approval.3 copies shah be, pathway EPZ and each State within'the G, '_c Q operab,ony,, g.,y.;; g.,.

• " 'e.s,. e- : x - - e m submitted within 30 days after the;.u c.ingestion path,sy EPZ to participate.gy/

f.;

.j.e.;

a change is made or proposed to thert.i * -

t-M -.4 % M a V'-wr-9 (d) Notwithstanding the requirements? Administrator of the appropriate NRC -

Dated at Washington, D of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section," regional office specified in Appendix D,E July,1982 m g.,p.,;.;g_.C; this 8th day no NRC or FEMA review, findings. or -

gy.7 t.,

g#..g d: terminations conceming the state of-10 CFR Part 20, with 10 copies to theur-For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-ntMon.j,gG offsite emergency preparedness or the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation..

Samual J. Chilk/r' -u-i-WF-...e gd.t, : '..:

adequacy of and capability to -- -

or,if appropriate;theDirectorof ra Secre!:ry of the Commisslorc. b -~ ; O.p-[

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, pm n,.ss.s rn o-ne'isal wr/ b - -h ~Q. :

implement _ State and local offsite U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, swuo cooc neo.ei a -' + 9; : ; W. :-i-M' i emergency plans are required prior 19 Washington. D.C,20555.

r:-

- :-O

' ~. -

- " -S-' h -rt:

issuance of an operatinglicense-i authorizing only fuel loading and/or low. -

. v,P '-

'i.

w. : -. 2 -

e

~

J power operations (up to 5% of the rated Appendix E fAmended].-

. J.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD,',p% ", '.

power). Inso.far as emergency planning 4,'Section I of Appendix E to 10 CFR 14 CFR Part 223 l~

• I Sb-and preparedness requirements are concerned. a license authorizing fuel Part 50 is revised to read as follows.

~'

' " ~ '-

-5 loading and/orlow power operaben

[footnot.es unchanged}r '

' IER-1296; Economic Reg'ulations Amdt.No.-

~

may be issued after a finding is made b'y -

I. Introduction ;.

. ".. c - -

- -~ 2 -

'-3 u)

..c.

..c..

17.-

. -4..

O y,...;-1 9 the NRC that the state of onsite Each applicant for a constnaction permit is Free and Reduced-Rate -

g'.#

emergency preparedness provides required by I 50.M(a) to include in the Transportation; Persons to Whom Freed?,

- reasonable assurance that adequate preliminary safety analysis report a and Reduced-Rate Transportation Mayf.2E,'

protective measurestan and will be discussion of preliminary plans for coping '

Be Furnished.

tiken in the event of a radiological.

with emergencies. Each applicant for an -

.. QM emergency.The NRC will base this opuating license is requ: red by 150.34(b) to AGENCY: Civil Aeronautics Board.gtd.j 3} jl finding on its assessment of the include in the final safety analys,s report i

gg u.e 4,.m -

applicant.s emergency plans against the plans for coping w2th emergencies.

pertinent standards in paragraph (b) of This appendix estabUshes minimum

~

SUMMARY

The CAB amends its this section and Appendix E of this Part.

requirements fer emergency plans for use in clarify that transportation benen, rules to attaining an acceptable state of emergency ts x- ~

3. Section 50.M(q) is revised to read preparedness.These plans sha!! be described es follows:

generally in the preliminary safety analysis ' received as compensabon for goods or -

services rendered to an airline, including M

~

.q

^

i