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.

pf d'

,/ ,

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 County, New York, an Assistant -

throu6h16 and all references thereto are and need not reflect the actual state of Attomey General of Massachusetts.'a'I n.

redestnated 9 throu;;h 15. s. preparedness at the time the finding is ~/U f

3. In S 92.11(fj(8) paragraph A.13 of made.ne amendment to 10fB Assistant Attomey General of New-r.;)YY the cooperative agreement, the first . 50.47(a)(2) was proposed to emphasize Hampshire, and representatives # o!Q-M

• 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 -

e.nd134f). 37 FR :64M.284 7:38 FR19141) ?: the life of the plant, and should be and 48 FR Bn32r": W N' '

. Done at Washington, D.C this 7th day of . i treated as an operationalinspection 9..

s.

. l-e

.Ju]y 3982. 0 matter.The proposed rule change would,1 changing Tlie following the regulations'wefe~

~

raised niajoilisueing Rd Risskr, #C wc;~$'M.id.p.a::.

-- #W ;I ~ 2 ;~ require

- .- that a full-scale exercise be - - -

speciSc comments received.Thesei-=

! AedagDeputy'22Si.~ dst $tolNrinary -.3 conducted before operabon above 5% of majorissues reflect the area's of coE _

l

.. 5,fvjoer.--.-..y -, <. .

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

d a-M N. Pr Posed rule change in 46 FRQ ofy,,g.neNRCsSh'bm many commenters! W- @----".-

N . - 9"P b'

r Es Qu. t* a. M,:;w,.. c.n . The en32 provided that in order to grant a :

e x2.

_.o co

, y a,- _+ ;

m%o--

undermined by the handling of the.n{l

4. ,. .. , . .. . ~ . ...--.s . .-. low powerofbeense.

the adequacy c-site emergency only' W a take findingpains to as,toiavoid evenaccident the oppeer that the Com -

~ .' y.$ ' f",{ "[, pre y

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

~

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

5 .; y a

urrent emergency preparedness 1*.&,2 fegdados,far mom 6e 6%g"a 4 10I CFR COMMISSION

u. .r;;.Part

., ."4WT2:'.inar te

u. ::.~50 g! ra;- .-9.%'..G. - orgamzabons and plans prior to et ;. stake;indeed,it is believed that the-have evalusted the. dequaey t

"' Em2rge' cy n Plannirig and. srb N D =. Issuance of a low power bcense.While :- credibility of NRC is a vital c6IhponMYkh:-

~ ~

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

IcENey NuclearRehl t fin s or le er ations seri us a cident were to' occur ma p

c . Co= mission.' / .,1.h..]-((-[.j.'h adequacy of offsite agencies' emergency yhmaybe ggg avedge d df hi"

. pla'inP and preparedness, the NRC '

Acnow: Final Nie. . .-

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 ,

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

.?' to clarify:(1) nat emegency : .- Co=munications, noti 5 cation.* < , wu agency to interfere.:gg.,J J preperedness exercises arepart of the. '. assistance agreements with'locallag.

~

sen usly wd the workabWty

.- ' preoperationa l . inspection and thus" enforcement, fire protection; and - r.9 n plans for m a n nsg an. ememen.d

.cy n g yany,y,,

required prior to operation above 5'% of.

i medical orgaidzations ~and thelik~eg Co7mssion Responsa rzted power, but not for a Licensing" Socie' examples ~but not an~exclusiveM 6=mtssion published,th@

~

raded

, 4 Board. Appeal Board, or Commissionf". .7 list, where ~ review of an applicant's "U  : emergency preparedngs.s August 1980, the . subject.cfjow power regulat2ons in.5'M, emergency plan'would involve aspects .

licensing issunnce ofdecision; and (2) that for U-7 of some offsite elements maybe operatingliceses[.~.~.'

~

for.nd;hcenses Operadng - was no,t. addressed ;f

, authorizing only fuello'a' ding and low ~7 in pertinent portions of10 CFR 50.47(b) . At that time the Commission di ,

' power operation (up to 5% of rated _q .).'," (3). (5) (6), (9), and (12).'!2 9 ~ ..

differentiate as to w' hat emergency.r power) no NRC or Federal Emergency ,

Extensive comments were received. - pI""'"ng requirements would bel .c -w@,g; Management Agency (FEMA) review," all of which were evaluated and .

applicable to the period of fuelloading n- .-g findings and determinations concerning considered in deyeloping the final rule. and low power testing.The Commi has now focused on the nsks assoc.s iated +;.

the state or ade9uaCY of offsite x emergency preparedness shall be .c

. o ~~ e c 11 . . .

- Sommary of Public Comments . .

with this level of operation and hase- -u "3 ,

n:cessary. .

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

commenting on the 46 FR 61134 WCME DAWuly 13.1982. proposed rule change and soletters preparedness appropriate to assure there$

FOR FURTHER IMPO4sdAGON CONTACT: " commenting on the 48 FR 61132 health stage. Inand doingsafety so, the of the public Commission at the : rd5.W 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. ;. -

Commis sion. Wa shington. D.C. 20555, opposed the rule change while illetters Issue 2: During low p6wert'e's'tiitg %, E-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, - si.:4=>. a '-

48 FR 61134).The proposed rule change legal firms and consulting firms -

defects.W.I.L Commission ResponEne d6 r.:5 u;M.Cn:.- 'f ,' -

2 in 48 FR 61134 was considered by the -

representing utilities, and one State Co==Ission agrees that thereinay be" t 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 a

.. M

. -..- ~.z..-

4

~

~?'

s

..gl ..{

., s

.ya

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

• ' I' M potentid for undiscovzred design and generally from the I.fcensing Borr'd * 'Combssion believes that the fmil

. 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 1m other factors. First, the fission product any respect the protection of the public 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 operation due to the low level of reactor (to the extent consistent with the rules Commission wants to sta te its continued

{ .h<.'. . p.ower and short period of operation.

Q.; 'Second, at low power there is a- and policies of the Commission and the ' commitment to the adequacy of objectives of the exercise) and in the

• C- signi5 cant reduction in the~ required emergency planning, safe operation of -

Y. capacity of systems designed to mitigate _ review meetings heldandafterassessment the exercise.The critique ' the plant, and in an efficient licensing 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.

h power operation.%ird. the time . . -- r.q for a 1.! censing Board. Appeal Board, or -

R^~available for takmg actions to identify Issue 5:Unlike some of the morel * -I ~ -

Commission licensing decision. - .technicalissues. emergency p!anninF is

! ' accident causes and mitigate accident Exercises will still be required before consequences is much longer than at full actual power above 5% and commercial -is a subject upon which the average citizen power.This means the operators should knowledgeable and can make a operation.The conduct of full-scale valuable contribution to the licensing -

_ have suf5cient time to prevent a radio . exercises early enough in the licensing

_ active release from occurnng. In the .

= Worst' case, the additional time available. , process to permit the outcome of the' ' . opportunity for public participation.

(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 exercises to be fully litigated at the proceedings.This is an important F.liminating this consideration from

_ low likelihood sequence.which could hearing is premature. Such exercises are licensing decisions in effect removes. ' t best held at a later time, when the -

this vital experimental evidence from"~ .

eventually result in release of the fiss,on i operating and management staff of the public scrutiny. ' ' # + MM

.,5 products accumulated atlow p

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

Commission Response:Le propos'e'd":

exerdse-are in place and trained in K precautionary ac.tions to be taken to emergency functions. The Commission rule does not elimina te any important'

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 ~~ *

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

jj Commission has deter =med that the ._ 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 # '

' protection,of the public health and Involved) the exercise will be held litigated in those hearings. In cases .

safety is signiScantly less than that before full power and all signiEcant deficiencies will be properly addressed. where such issues e.re raised. applicants'~

, required for hil ower operation. ~

and State and local jurisdictions' Issue de These rule changes would emergency plans should be available for

$ -e te p blicPa ato in undermine public conSdence in the

, . e-adequacy of emergency planning. safe examination in the hearing process prior ,.

D e an ass,ess e

of exercises..., .. . operation of the plant, and the licensing to the issuance of an operating bcense.

In addition an outline of an exercise T j ' .- . .. . Commission sponser While it is true process. - - - - r. .:. g.;;. p ir.,:- n-+

should also be avallable in order to -

e

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

d assure that the requirement for the , -- ,

h effect of limiting htigation of the success Commission noted in the Federal I

4 conduct of exercises (10 CFR part 50, -

Register notice which announced the ' - Appendix E.Section IV) can or will be - -

k N'?the Commission's view that su .hof exercises in licensing hearings,it is :. upgraded 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 - ,

[ - The substantive emergency planmng .- signiScant offsite radiological L question whether the requirements of10 .

CFR 50.47 can or will be met, a party to 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 i~ t.w-- - dayin question but which do not '

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 '

" recent operatir.s !! cense caser Diablo Canyon. that the full-scale exercises themselves

' notified promptly, and that adequate involve participation bylocal and State Q Q 1 Q 3,'", Q g '3y,

' 3 S -

protective actions in response to actual governments. Both the NRC and FEMA

. - 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 tha u f factoYas th o the caliber of reviews for full power are fully addressed, and that any 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  !

expressed by these comments, however, cbviously in the interest of the utilities. Commission Response:It is true that I are addressed in the Commission special bearings will not. in a typical l

-Commission Response: As explained case. be held following the fuU-scale Responses to Issues 3 and 4. in previous Responses, the Cc= mission issue 6 The public knowledge that no exercise. He public should recognize is convinced that the rule changes will- '

offsite protection exists could cause not that the Commission does not intend to chaos in the event of an incident during the public.The compromise the bealth Commission and safety considers of authorize the issuance of a fun.p;ower l fuelloading or low power testing. operating license if there has been'a full. E that the rule changes provide flexibilit I in its liter. sing procedures, thereby ' ~yscale exercise which raises serious and Commission Response: prior to '

issuing an oper ating license authorizing significant deficiencies w*hich haie not meeting its obligation to the public to - been compensated for ~a nd which Iow power testing and fue!!oading. the conduct its business in a timely and .- A..

NRC will review the following offsite - the fundamental nature of Mther ,. .Eo nc to : -

elements of the applicant's emergency efficient manner.This obligation. n c emergency plan itself. Such'a deScienEf : M 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..- '

, cssistance resources have been made, . Issue a:The proposed rule changes . . protected in a radiological emergencyf:AEJ d 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 Emergency Operations Facility have ;~.. ' CommissionResponse:In developing"

. been made, and other orgebations remedied; these types of deS the upgraded emergency preparednesan . should not delay licensing action..S' e fo e '3

' capable response of augmenting have the planned.

been identified.h .u..: - - regulations (45 FR 5540% dated Augustc- CFR 50.47(c)r" * ' d -WP'2<-476,f

. 19.1980) one of the policy statementsW '

Issde 22:No' rationales~uitAinsIhe't %1~7 (b) Section 50.47(b)[5). Procedures -

have been established for notification lrr that onsite the Commission and offsite emergencyy made um . preparedness was 'thatm reg'uiremint for smallresearch

• M.G reac rs of;- offsite e

' .by the licensee, of State and local..a c preparedness as w' ell as proper siting r response organizations and for.m. ._ ; - possessing a fisslorfprod6ct bvent5ry )

d notification of emergency personnel by - .needed and engineered design to protect the health and safetyn features a largeare r -;while reactor equivalent to that gener 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 -e reacted to the accident atThree Mile ~f reactor. ~ ,- N ,-- O .c2 = - T'.' .-;;

orgenizations and the public has been Island.It became clear that the- . m~ Com=/ssionRespadse<Alihoiigh.-;.J.% ,.-Q established; and means to provide early .O protection provided by siting and 2 Y -~ 3 notiScation and clear instruction to the engineered design features must be -

research reactors smallerrisk than present'an powerresct' ors they.inherentlyg

. 'M populace within the plume exposure bolstered by the ability to take do not possess the accident mltigation g ,

pathway Emergency Pleg Zone have protective measures during the course of hatures (e.g,large containments)..e, . . .!

been.sstablished. . - _..-:. . _- an accident.N.a. . .s .. . n. required for powerreactoriIn additionT; 1:i (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 (d) Section personnel 50.47(b)(8)_ and to the public.

Adequate -:v - efficiency to the licensing processJ.'M emergency plan for these reactnrs.f4 -M 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 (e) Section 50.47(b)(9). Adequate elements require that:r . :- - - . Iow power. The risks of operating ar,q:

M methods systems, and equipment for, r -a. .-

(a)(8) Adequate emergency facilities' , power reactor at low power ares.j s.:nk/ ' ~.;M 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 i nO radiological emergency condition are inn and 'm r r use.-. the fission product inventory during'lovC- 2-W

--c

-1 (b)(15) Radiological emergency . e power testing is much less than during ef F (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 to those who may be called on to assist See Commission Response to Issue #8.^ the consequencems designed to mitigsteW-f s of accidents comparedaAn n in an emergency *

• Issue mne rule changes effectively Knowing that the above elements of to the required capacities underfull-M i7 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 measures could and would be taken in even after a full. scale eiereise before - have sufficient time to prevent a f.-n f5 the event of an accident.

Issue 7: ne rule changes are operation above 5% of rated power.ne radioactive release from occurring.In .*

public is unlikely to be granted a special the worst case, the additional timei . .

. .@' sa 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 - 3

' Added in reopenn to public commenC actual state of preparedness, postulated low likelihood sequence-whic

..[

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 imp riant to hold the exercise close to because restrictions on applicants are h: Commissinner.Gilinsky's Separate - - complet2on of the plant since the being relieved. . .

. Op. .w ,. .P

. < -n operating personnel will then L on site I.ist of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 7-- I dbapprove both parts of the.- 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.

}'j necessary prior to issuance of a low ~

. power license. As I stated in my ..

goveinment and other emergency people PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

~

!- disapproval of the proposed rule, there " provide do participate commentsin and these meetings and do - PRODUCTION AND UTIOZA criticism.

I should be some offsite preparedn'ess. ^ "C ' FACIUTIES I especiallyif there is to be an extended National Environmental Poh.

ey Act ,,- .VJ  ;

Consideration - -- . , 1 period of low power operation - . r 1.The authority citation for Part 50

! . f.m u 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.

1244.1248 (42 USC 5841. 5842. 5846) imle i

.. . The other part of the ruie'ex.clude's% is no substantive or significant .

,- ~9 consideration of emergency exercises in - environmentalimpact. '

~ . . - . . - jd ' ' d g ,, an operating license proceeding, thereby . t sh bh ~

,4 eliminating an opportunity for pubhc. , . , Regulatory Flexil$ility'Ce'rtification

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

i participation in this phase of In accordance with the Regulatory

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

I decisionmaking.%e exercises never Flexibility Act of l980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Sections 50.200..:'1c2 issued under sec. tse.

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 findings necessary for the issuance of an 2. In i 50.47, paragraph (a) is revised.

'Itese hearingsneed but wenot behave should presented come in formal ' ~ operating license for

- nuclear powertext to paragraph (b) is the introductory

.. . , 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

.re : r license'v-7." 2 =^'~ m, and op,erating these nuclear power - ! 50.47 Emegency plane. s- . . ,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 ~~U.S.C. 632 or within the Small Business that there is reasonable assurance that 1 NRC estimates are used, this 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.s Additional 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 assurance that they can be

~

adequacy of offsite emergency .

preliminary determination that these , 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

.30236 Federal Registir / -Vol. 47[No.134 / Tuesday, July 13, 1982 ./ Rules and Regulatichs -

I*

, . reasonable assurance that they can bc { 50.54 C0nditions cf licenses. report and submittzd cs part of th1 final implemented. A FEMA finding wiU primarily be based on a review of the

• * * . . safety enalysis report.

(q) A licensee authorized to possess '

• plans. Any other mformabon already p["-(sNa'ted of and/or operate a nuclear power reactor .

l available to FT.MA may be considered research and test reactors and fuel fac!!! ties ' <

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

-s implemented. In any NRC licensin8 appliceble standards in i 50.47(b) and the applicable requirements in assodated with nuclear power reactors. ~W

. proceeding, a FEMA finding will Consequently, the size of Emergency .$-

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 '

questions of adequacy and /- than power reactors and the degree to which d';I-}

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 _,

preparedness exercises (required by paragraph (b)(14) of this section and plans which meet the requirements in necessary wi:1 be determined g on a cas,e-by-3.

Appendix E. Section F of this part) are, Appendix E to this part.The nuclear power reactorlicensee may make-

• • • • h**$ - ' g g-

"~ ~' .N 'd}

part of the operabonalinspecuan the of e ating lic ch

- - changes to these plans without .~

process and are not required for any .~ Co==ission approvalonlyif such

.. caly fuelloading and/or low power, . T1 initiallicensing decision.; , ,1 m . operations up to 5% ofrated power.~no NRC . i 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:' -

P 1

, . j c.~ ,, . - gp. ..S

. g Appendix E to this 'part. The 'res'e' arch'"* . ^g ,PM***'***"**$'*.# .P ri "" thy issuagy

- reactorlicensee and/or the fueliacility M.

' ' (c)(1) Failure toNeNe shiic'abYe a' ' licensee may make changesto these% 1. S'eclio'n F of Appendix E to'10 CFRNk

.. ~-- . A O-C M.--.7 ~;;4 4 '

' ~

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

this section may result in the y .c only if such changes do not decrease th.e Part50. item (b)isrevised toreadaC s 7

~

Commission declining to issue'a'n , effectiveness of the plans and theplans,;. .

follows: 3. gm.n,.-f;;m _ -. g , .4 ip,77,g gy .,f ,;,,;.-r g -,,,

operating license:however'the bl . I.., asdangedicontmue to meet the, c.f ..;.. 4 requirements of Appendix E to this part.

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

applicant will have an opportunity to 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 plans shaU not be implemented without for that site 1: Issued after July 23. 2sa:.. . --i -

plans are not significant for the plant in 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; be taken promptly, or that there are copies of each proposed change for- _~1 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.

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

.j.e.; *

• " 'e.s ,. ae- : x - - e m submitted within 30 days after the; .u c . * , f.;

change is made or proposed to thert.i *ingestion M -.4path,sy (d) Notwithstanding the requirements? Administrator of the appropriate NRC -

- t-Dated at Washington, D

% M a EPZ V'-wr-9 to participate.gy/

of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section," regional office specified in Appendix D,E July,1982 gy.7m g. ,p .,;.;g_.C; g#. .g this 8th day o

._ no NRC or FEMA review, findings. or - 10 CFR Part 20, with 10 copies to theur-t., ,

d: terminations conceming the state of- For the Nuclear Regulatory Com-ntMon.j,gG Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.. Samual J. Chilk/r' -u-i-WF- . . .e gd.t, : '. .: -

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

adequacy of and capability to -- -

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, swuo cooc neo.ei a -' + 9; : ; W . :-i-emergency plans are required prior 19 Washington. D.C,20555. r:-

issuance of an operatinglicense-authorizing only fuel loading and/or low . - . v,P '-

. .-... e

'i. w. : - . 2 -

~

- :-O

' ~ . -

- " -S-' h -rt: M' i J

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

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

power). Inso.far as emergency planning _ _

and preparedness requirements are 4,'Section I of Appendix E to 10 CFR 14 CFR Part 223 l~

• I Sb- ' -

~'

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. . .c. .

. ".. c - - . ..

u) -

- -~ 2 - *

- . . '-3 the NRC that the state of onsite

17.-

Each applicant for a constnaction permit is

,,, . . . -4 .. O y ,. . .;-1 9 Free and Reduced-Rate - g' .#

emergency preparedness provides required by I 50.M(a) to include in the --

- reasonable assurance that adequate preliminary safety analysis report a Transportation; Persons to Whom Freed?,

protective measurestan and will be '!

discussion of preliminary plans for coping ' and Be Reduced-Rate Furnished . - .- - Transportation *-'- Mayf.2E ,'

tiken in the event of a radiological .

emergency.The NRC will base this with emergencies. Each applicant for an -

opuating license is requ: red by 150.34(b) to

. . QM AGENCY:

finding on its assessment of the include in the final safety analys,s i report applicant.s emergency plans against the plans for coping w2th emergencies.

Civil Aeronautics gg u.e 4,.m Board.gtd.j- 3} jl This appendix estabUshes minimum ~

pertinent standards in paragraph (b) of .

this section and Appendix E of this Part.

SUMMARY

The CAB amends its requirements attaining an acceptable ferstate emergency of emergency plans for use in clarify that transportation ts x- ~ ;benen, rules to

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

es follows: generally in the preliminary safety analysis services' rendered receivedtoas ancompensabon airline, including for goods or - -

~

M .

.q

^

i