ML20141G942

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Comments Received to Date Re Proposed Rule on Emergency Planning & Earthquakes.Comment Period Will Be Extended Addl 30 Days
ML20141G942
Person / Time
Issue date: 01/24/1985
From: Merrill O
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To: Moeller D
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML20140C992 List:
References
FOIA-85-653 ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8601130203
Download: ML20141G942 (1)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:~ ~ .1,i..:.. (' N #UM8 erg ' '( [ G+9 5 + s w& M RULE \\ i l s

  • b J.

.14 AT :42

Dear Secretary of the Nuclear Regyiatory Com_m@sion:

C ' 2:.' ,.,gv v We the undersigned are diametrically oppos&2f to the' NRC proposal.to make " official" their policy of not considering the effects of earthquakes in einergency planning for nuclear power plants.

. t Furthermore, we feel it patently absurd and gross'!yiegilgent'o5'the Cognmission to argue that while hundreds of millions of dollars had to be spent to modify.

i Diablo Canyon to withstand the effects of the nearby and active hc:gri Fault, no consideration need now be given to the effects of a major earthquake on ~ emergency planning. We are adamant in our conviction that earthquakes must be considered in the emergency planning and are not so naive as to think that sorne malfunction could not occur at Diablo during a major temblor that might necessitate evacuation. The foreshortened deadline of January 22,.1985 should be extended to March 15, 1985 in order to allow sufficient public comment. Thereafter, public hearings must be scheduled in order for those affected to have input into an upgraded and more rational emergency p1=a-NAME ADDRESS &fl,M s r u r's u n I2. At./b'v/c w,a' m A sLJ 3.Gatt-w, denwa. A.s. ca. us. A.. .. V%K % .s u 5. ?%Ll L Y ')< 0$N ' G 10 % (c [ vut .1 / L / i / A*' 6. / /L'JMW6d ii,wnt&v l/1'2h ~

8.. T u d'

~: ' d ' L '~' 'N I .C ~ ~' - Q.. ,",k., n y. -

. 79,. y.,.

g, ~~ 10. C CO r 8601130203 051125 PDR FOIA 'W 2 f, "f' BELL 85-653 PDR

g. gg, g,"*,

-- - --,g PA

~ \\ netnuustr \\ amoss m 9 w ( [49 Fil 6% .r. m d Ato 4S v.

Dear Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

C ' M:: f-We the undersigned are diametrically opposed to the NRC pr6pesa ' to " official" their policy of not considering the effects of earthquakes in emer ency p nning for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, we feel it patently absurd and gro' sly negligent of the Commissic'. s to argue that while hundreds of millions of dollars had to be spent to modify Diablo Canyon to withstahd the effects of the nearby and active Hosgri Fault, no consideration need now be given to the effects of a major earthquake on emergency planning. We are adamant in our conviction that earthqbakes must be considered in the cmergency planning and are not so nalve as to think that some malfunction could not occur at Diablo during a major temblor that might necessitate evacuation. The foreshortened deadline of January 22, 1985 should be extended to March 15, 1985 in order to allow sufficient public comment. Thereafter, pub!!c hearings must be scheduled in order for those affected to have input into an upgraded and more rational emergency plan. NAME ADDRESS 0 l. W d. 4,! & attts s t e d LM. $AH LU IS e rY %do, <.'. 4. $3 4<. 1. MhamL e. McLuut 6 I c., ILW u buu. " 2. 4 A M,kd. Jeo 2. QA&'. dase rdeA c!d8%% s. e d (,N((N wnCl'M 4 4 %dn*< MTcba*tWCl n. @$s M5r06/ Torr' 42./ %[ ct 0 5. 6. of. > /W/ $2)7'?>~46Y E (bY 7. .yt y_> - % 2, M $2 hPf%KP e.S(4, cj,29 [nbhr.f kkiU/U?O 1 6CD NGTHKL '2 $ b 8. W lf?^Md4*

  • 1DJ c/*,yh1 bdbw _S-f

.S~C O 9. [dt $h WINn '0 62 f5fikk I M 4 li li'bl/ I 1o. G Tt e #

  • *-.., w r-.* % ~--.9 ~~

n

C. 7 sans nousuPK-EA g) c.em 4%% ,~- -- - 6 c'. 24 KCM1 - Daar Secretary of the Nucisar Regulatory Commission: ,qp.. We the undersigned are diametrically opposed to the NRC proposal.'to $s [ghfbbIhb' their policy of not considering the effects of earthquakes in emergency plannini s for nuclear power ' plants. Furthermore, we feel it patently absurd and grossly negligent of the Commission to argue that while hundreds of millions of dollars had to be spent to modify Diablo Canyon to withstand the effects of the nearby and active Hosgri Fault, no consideration need now be given to the effects of a major earthquake on emergency planning. We are adamant in our conviction that earthquakes must be considered in the emergency planning and are not so naive as to think that some malfunction could not occur at Diablo during a major temblor that might necessitate evacuation. The foreshortened deadline of January 22, 1985 should be extended to March 15, 1985 in order to allow sufficient pubile comment. Thereafter, pubile hearings must be scheduled in order for those affected to have input into an upgraded and more rational emergency plan. ' NAME ~ ADDRESS 1il M W ~ -Trr&&nsr h oysya t% !.Luv M w isi,a dAsas.s. d..:sco qssesi 1. 0 //1} & o l /,$n k w i v s. Al8DE. 8 VH18w2 94?9 db??W &'&.985td a. ' A.d// A ' .;; W L d N. E G. A fo ' 5... A L & e a -- ao w An. Mesen 7. Yb b VO "f dien A vt.. A W SL.O 95 W l o.b QAdw w - 1590 d u w &-s + h Ld 8. r /b ac/I /3S/ 0 %& lb W T, % o W h 9r.s s' n,

10. J A t A l. f. M e.x M,f q;L IE-W
3...,

c.;,,_ (

e.... (

g e.. u s 7 r+ .~__m h9 M 4E'N / _, a./ o-e s

Dear Secretary,

I as writing in regard to proposed amendmedt's 5 M E L' ~ y.'regulationse speci'fically. coneerning the.re. :.c..g...,.. .-to. w

sw eh...a r.

,s.ggby.}Th Q fff. ' .l:p.: tquirements -to. consider potential... earthquake.s~1n i,i:MA ....,...~..~.._,r., EM.. the '*offsite -emergency planning". - .%::a.,.;, m --h4.w% ' 2...1:_<

xM..

z...;;. o. A,-.Y nU.- 'I strongly;, citically.. e.a.I~:,,suggest that;the regulationW.jpe."::t,yd n% 4 .:- k.'I-y x.e. J.: -...&.w-g. - f A.T~ * ..,.i..... Tequire addressing the impact ' of. marth..s.f~W-V ~ . W... s ~. +. ' m.. .~;;m..-- ~e. z. . +. . qua'kes in"this...eontext ...T.. 3.~n r -- .m.. .s.. ..... e. .. e, e..., ~. I fear that this proposed loosening of 'the ~y.u..n.. /. -. n ~,. requirements -will be seen-ais.a lack 'of real'. concern.g..}Ql.%.. .. :. e. a,.:.r m, " y.y: '"? ( .for the health and safety of y.our consti-tuency, ,,,f ... L.. .h.;.'"I.;. ,the Americn -people. t . ?,,; r _.Lg. 0,. $jR;.f:;-+ In the event of a nuclear plant accident. .Th. - A.::.y. . ;o;.. .A. u :..:. ..,.:5;:.y,.,.;.g... no, amount of. pr.s=,. . ecautionary measures will have'll M *6 N-. y,.... ~ h

11. <,, e....*

.c, - s ~ Q ~**'p p. $. yW a 2 !!rd,.. w.g jg, q. 3.. Lw.. y-t. f.r.g...,.4,,. an e.~..,.:p%- .g ,. ~.. q..t; -

m..,,,f

... e..,. ;.. .<.,<s.#....-. ..-. 4*<Afp$ $f..o%):'iky' ?w*SMi$w$W4M.{.$;w:;6,; e., .... n. ,.w,..,.. ~mm$;.:t , g..,.,,.4rs..,.

f..

e.g yc .p. e, .g 3 4, - y :cccar M= ?,

.~. m. a. w + p >
s ' a n..

r :u,,m e.

m.u h.. F' [.,s~e i.,,3;"f ---n.f.~~.~,.Y,7. 7 W 'f,e' 7 C.,. p' f
  • e*~. O '- M

,.~ i b*b*J, .h- [ P r.N h. NM'Mdi e.es.@.A.,w ~

    • ,,yJ e t.'y 4

m p A& ,..:.Q. t.w.#..t. m- ,t u 4 u q* m, -(

m..,g<

..e 4

4. --vg ;N.%. 1:.$., mm.=,m.r.,.,..

=T M, ~~%.y y .. ~. 9 .~ W.;1,.;vo nA.-t . i. r.w.r. g epC-%.=.:n.horp ;..e Ew;.gwr;#n.r.*.~ %pe,,;;,4.,g;,n+.,, C.p;..,.38@u. v. &.Pty, s.s

rk

.u y.e m+; h B. ,,, =,..

t..,

n . *.., ~ p.;.-:3.. y.a:.q.r --*.~% r ~'a. c.,..,. '*4=w:~:&,t:"ke Mb'.g':& '.y:l'G.n. m: .r. v.a. a r e. g.,

. +

m'. t ...n.. ..Wr

,?;.; * --*

-' '. * :k%:;d C ::.;,w,rr & ~m.n % * - ' : 4.ec..,,.,

  1. k

..y%-*'J M' 1 NYB MFedit hML-W ha %@. m @. d... f K4'DMA'%F8U'Whk, W^~/TQ rA s.,. -.=.,an. . - m p.. wen..BB.. m ..., a %, f ,_'* g* g ' M"'~% W'!? u' G M*kg.4',.if4't ?8/f'. - O*0' MIEM.g&.M..e?.,y .,f vge..,,M S G * '. ' *: %ig. f..:. u,g g.m % m, d'S s i W y,n,.. n.J.,j E'T M.D M S.

  • m*

.. gd,.,,, iA4 w f. 3 '-i :.. ..N 67,.a.y.m.9..".L.~,..;C=eW 2F m,.e ~t MC. - thMiE .m2 ..'. w. a.::'. 4..w.;d..;t;qm:n wf m,em. 0.%.;.,;.n,,, .g.-p~.v,,-.m.: <,p..p.,Lo.u.g.. m,.'en,e. 4.,; :,rL,;.. m:m; c.W.: ~.. y n-i C... 7 O.Q wi. m :. m.. :::

v
w. ;

..J,..th w .y

g. yo.

r..p .; o.. y..,. ....e.. ..>.v.

  • mt.; w, ~./. 4.-@W;g;,c. -e.
. :... s- :: -c ~. 9,,..

i.+,-w,. -;,.c u q q e, wn, e..

f.
  • t.. r.

9;; . : /. c.,.g.,g q

j. 3,,.....

r. e ..:r.e:,:f,; ;;W:wmf;s.fw q.4.c a.a.f qgg va,.gry qw" e.'g.w a,t't;@wue -w... e Wes.. 9% ....< :m. m.pa.ou N ssy e y:4,.~.Ma a. g.s;.* ;.p:Mp.-: b.3 . A,2y. ...yty.ga ... :., :...,.. ; v c.v M x.; 3r,:.,.,x ,. ~.......;.u. 2 ? -.:n.my:.% _,,..;..,. p., n.v+.s.c;,,...I M... w wa % ; m. :.. w .,+... :.w c. ,...,..n....,....;r :s. ,. a,yy.s s <-

  • s..

a

.s.e.~.

c.:y, :.2, &, em.. 3 r @ '.l. k.. 0 2 M N *E N $[.fd. S 5 7 f.3'*.5.[_ N ~ M d N 5 Y M.a ItNM., N~,,i y,,., p.A s~ -..r... ..,- :..r... n. ,.-s 9,c..4.gyk ~pg,

,.n Aas. r-.

R %... r. rc v.m.s.. 4... <y.-g...:q3:,.; a:.;n.jgy,w..r,:

  1. .. :'.:e:..:::. ;-.;y7' "i y :,,:

,.e.p.ML. _f.= ':.:#:,.;u.-c. e-rf < ~-w : w :;;p:.:1,uf,pa. ne: yy:. h.ss ;r.;:r.4hK.S.,.,. ;. r.pe.g .,.r g;y w. .sc .c,,;e.m c e mes.v.

x, :.

,7. y.r...~.w

  • e+

e.s;:-y. n.v.. w wrn.n...,.~ ..,....h&,.,%m..e.. .:t m. cf). + + - - c.. a, nm y M'f - r.;;Yi.,,..2.'". *p4.'h.,n ,.4t?' s a e ..,s % W. $.... ,Gic,2 w;,.-=),;.,,, % Q-)%.,Q,;S q 7, .ta .W **: ??2Di R 7't,L ^

{', I'- A l.' O ', January 21,1985 wW di # I swear that the following 260 pages is a true copy 4 to the best of ( du my knowledge, of the orginal transcripts in the Gemunissions file of the proceedings ' before the Nuclear Regulatory Comatission on the matter of Discussion of Earthquakes and Emergency Planning for Diablo Canyon held by the [ ssion July 25,1984. July 30,1984 and August 3,1984 in Washington D.C.3"ss. J sl 46- (Ed,Jud;ca4. r. y g sg., 4.e4 % h i( d5 ti., Ahaki h-46 Cw.* sit,.cs C % se,.y 9y gf 64.w ud C.'. ase 6, ' l(c.: a v.( g Eg,e,tE. W,sM-l -$'i44 g'Ig)'"t 5. se As.vt* f aryca.Q s m gd, g-g., c f^'y 4* 4 P N S.3, % Q*'Q,g(Ef m Steven F. Beim t ll h ',,h4 &R. - { 'h ' ' [ ~C..'i '!.X.Dw w ~ e {e:ees:ecesererece:o:e:eee:oroc OFFICIAL 51AL $ g,y'y'h.N.Q;Q NotAu ru.sc.rady 34 ch ,H Rec.dsfi C. McG cA.s:<:aA SANTA CLARA Ccy. STY M Ibeo:y Com nission Expires Oct. 22,1785 o.c~cao, cesmw:eess ~ c4 O N

mmno sun 5, ; & . ;q.o Q,, si n+- Autiig* 7 9 s r ru 64 W 49610f ,a e n s c A.e v, c,q .f***'") % M&T -%.s % -m',, 2z.e.xbe3 q s v m h -t t 7;'.<g a t< r y % s k 1% 7.'H' N 'IS J 13 2a kP bt, b6 Z<a555- . 0Nl. A**'y' Wt 5Ay < k W " f*.%; Q z.c<f.%ut8is a N ~ ~%f'" : **d'.wAdeg)m n d't 1 s zu N ?k c Jr a Qs. n ser.)ata~y "%+s 6""Mf" .<., se>: de ~ M . u a. l n c.o - n u e y y p.D A<r6 /c N M ( ~ 0 m p w m say p-CAMm 1mc MN -c<M d-ry44 -tee.et-<. -var -r/uz N' v Ams./u.L -

  • M v64ve.J* m{. g-af4e<t &ye < c

.&McA.<g,t, <2~f emer p-<4 5 a ec. 4 JP-cd (ps-eeatu man;ctas ?

  • 's C+ ~ M 3

-f ~1 % c.sasu m p p g c. c. ~ E' i!"B*?LT 4 '2-6o 4

rt$ v.) m o.a

$Y.> < e. 3 /t 1 b i ..(- s-i)a{f'" 7^mLfo AAu' c.I$d$)A&m_h 4hWT (d ./cg 4' Y. r -+ m nay ,V_.

m ~-m wi4.a-ceas' n;dzg-45ih

~. &&'4;p& 4 -y4eu+dl./f0l? D*79*2R -y % fmy--

64,7-agL.A&!

iii ce TW6 pt' , av e's,/< ?Y"'W%a}e y., -c.; a ;t i % ' ' A I' Y l 2 -t Q - ,,p' 'E

y. "Y63 "3 f

4. T i- %c a. ? %,:a a C fy a,7 .T '"N'*Ycu %. w.c...e 7

c. We

'#Arfh#E.EE?t T $$ M *s

( g ', * ~ geog)gD RULE h9 g s ni~ .s.. 192 Luneta E e.d 23 P1 23 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 21', 1985 UflCE : d..;.. ;,.. 00CF.i.7..G & SEFva:i Mothers for Peace

== Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear R.egulatory Commission 1717 'H" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20S55 Re: Proposed Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

You have proposed a new NRC rule that will make it unnecessary to consider the potential impact of earthquakes on emergency planning at nuclear reactor sites. We request that you extend the period for public comment on this proposal for an additional 30 days. I am on the service list for the Diablo Canyon licensing pro-ceedings and have yet to receive notification of the proposed rule. A second member of our group, also on the service list, received notification on January 12, 1985. Since a 60, day comment period is normal, we urge you in the name of fairness, to extend your Januar,y 22 deadline by 30 days. Since I and all the members of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace live in a seismically active area and very close to the Diablo Canyon plant this matter is of immediate and serious concern to us. Sincerely, Oj, Nancy Culved for Mothers for Peace l Dpgy&S (>.

n u 98 O e

c! a Ne w w - C. .....,m -

( (, A IJ la-N.%) Ww Ce lY' c J e j ax,L / go da Jff, e_ } f) L C2$ $ A LA i wwa' aJ A4 6jiu. AuAr. 4N' 1

  • A W

O e ese ee s e e O 4 uma w -6m I a e k G

( ( j em nA4 6. i ac5'**5 PR-fo.. .A gre n-)=, 6 pe0msto RULE ($ $$6@) 2 4. 4 /frr m-, ~ (j LVu u ; y vo:a r ; *.. (Jbd ~ . :.., M E p.#,.. D- ~ 0 ~ sL46 / EC t& ab /7 Uu8 A k a&y~rdc.-g&,k'Y /2ln wnn la 7995 Mad Ad~s ka. e0 bb 12 wk LL M. Jeu cw A Awchi sla,J a,, J /NAl l' Lw .24. " o L c J A. o c k ;)\\ %p

  1. O MA R Nl s

J A Ja.,a,swst' /d5 E I lst ma m Ilub ' mA D l -AL.U d.. m...G.. & w -ru-br' I s $ f2 f511 N L,4?,, .(r

y v

i g i 2 y@ 3@ * $ '

( ( 3 expeckd to impact the bases for existing emergency planning requirements. Accordingly, the irr. position of any additional requirements would not be warranted. We are also taking this opportmity to support the additional views of Chairman Pa!!adino included In the FederalRegister notice. We have difficulty, as does Chairman Palladino, understanding wny the opportmity to comment on a proposed rule excluding the consideration of earthquakes In emergency plaming is any less meaningful than a similar opportmity to comment on a proposed rule including the consideration of earthquakes. We apper.ciate the opportmity to offer our comments on the proposed rule, and trust that our comments wil! be considered by the NRC in the process of promulgating a final rule on this subject. Very truly yours,,, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY 8' .G T !? . W. G. Counsit Senior Vice President 9 9 -,.m._-_

---~( {. consequences, both In nature and degiee. Fwther, the range of possible selection for a planning basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no planning at att u-sign!!! cant offsite radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst passible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. De NRC/ EPA Task Force did not attempt to define a sin 5 e acciderrt sequence or even a 1 limited number of sequences. Rather, it Identified the bounds.of the parameters for which planning is recommended, based upon knowledge of the potential consequences, timing, and release characteristics of a spectrum of accidents The dioice of the size of the Emergency Planning Zones represents a judgment on the extent of detalled planning which must be performed to assure an adequate response base. In a particular emergency, protective actions might well be restricted to a sma!! part of the planning zones. On the other hand, for the worst possible accidents, protective ar+Ians would need to be taken outside the planning zones. One of the criteria used in limiting )the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone to approximately ten (10 miles was that " detailed plausiing within 10 miles would provide a substantial base for expansion of response efforts in the event that this proved necessary." Consistent with the above planning bases for emergency response plans, we do not believe that emergency response plans need to consider in detail a!! types of wew ts and natural events, especially low probability events. En fact, the n recommendations included in NUREG-0396 have considered the probabi!Ity of various events occurring. We believe seismic events are of the type of events which should be explicitly excluded from detailed emergency response planning. We concur with the technicar basis for the exclusion of the consideration of earthquakes In emergency planning set forth by the NRC in the Federal Realster notice and, therefore, we will not repeat it here. We note that the results of the Probabilistic Safety Study (PSS) performed for Mllistone Unit No. 3 support this position. The PSS was submitted to the NRC in Reference (!) and is, therefore, available for NRC use. In addition, the results of the Millstone Unit No. 3 PSS support the' exclusion of " tornadoes or any similar low-probability naturally occurring phenomena" from consideration in emergency planning. Tornadoes, floods, hurricanes,. and other low-probability events should be excluded from consideration since they have been found in the Millstone Unit No. 3 PSS to contribute significantly less to plant risk from externally initiated events than seismic events. One topic not discussed in the Federal Reelster notice, but that in our opinion warrants exp!! cit consideration when increases in emergency planning rmtuirements are contemplated, is the potential reduction in source terms. Existing emergency planning requirements in general are likely unjustifiably excessive. Releases from nuclear power plant accidents are likely to be much less than those previously specified. Current estimates from various industry groups (e.g., IDCOR and ANS) and the NRC Staff are that the radioactive source term may have been significantly overestimated A more realistic and accurate source term and more realistic analyses of severe accident scenarios are 4

r

+---.w. .. -. _, ~,,. ~. - -,,.. ~.. - -,. - -,. _ - - - - - - -.

- = = = = - 1 momse nu PR>.a (6g ~ ( asestysmast'Urmsruns [49F4 4 969f* ows**=a====*.ca-.=== P.O. BOX 7FD 1 -- Z _; ,.c.,, C .,g.. e HMTFORD. Cosm8CDCUT 088M orto L ansiassent . :=.-- m --- __ ___ '05 s a d A8:26 G-3_ O v=ric_E.:: 5E4.f.amary 22,19a5 X a sm.. o w #' Docket Nos. 50 213 % 265 A 336 35T5 ErrEB 4 ~ ~ Fg. Pg M) Mr. Samuel 3. Chilk g secretary.f thecommissio, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D. C. 20$$5 Reference (1). W. C. Comsit letter to B. 3. Yomgblood, dated July 27,1983. ~ Gendemem Haddam Mede Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3 Egd Rule Regarding Consideration of PotentialImpacts of Eartixnsaises on Emu;aci Plannine On Decembec 21,1984, the NRC pubilshed In the Federal Register (49 FR 49640) for jmbile comment a. proposed rule which would explicitly not require the cons;deration of the potential impacts of earthquakes on emergency planning. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO), on behalf of the Haddam Neck Plant and Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1,2, and 3, respectively, hereby submit our l comments in response to the Federal Register notice. CYAPCO and NNECO fully support the proposed rule and the Ir-p. tion of the Commisslotts Interpretation in t!m San Onofr'e and Diablo Canyon cases explicitly into the regulations. The basis for existing NRC regulations regarding emergency planning are largely contained in NUREG-0396, "Planm'ng Basis-for. - .-

  • w the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Ems

.cy - Response Plans In Support of 1.lght Water Nw: lear Power Plants," dated December, l973, and NUREG-0654, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparednesa in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," dated November,1980. Section 1.D in NUREG-0654 states, in Part: The overall objective of emergency respome plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a eg,.uom of l accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs) No single specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different g g Acknowledged by conf...E.N p,*,p

'60'30 68# ( 11081E2 -{I!4Ti22/TO prepared a plan.(" Federal iEarthquake Response' and Assistance Plan," Federal i imergency Management Agency; Region.IX, May 1984) which coordinates the response of federal agencies and.provides assfstanse to: state and losal goternments in their planningx In califforrria, the Statenhas pmpared a plan ' te support,less1 governmentsiin:the. event'of an'earthquakc~ (" State' of, s. California Earthquake Responsa Plans" Calffornia. Office of Deergency Services, . April 1981).* a Resources..and mechanismsiare,avat.lable to respond;to an eart>=hes ' Given the .i-inherent flexibility of nuclear.amargency plahs; the earthquake planstand nuclear plans.would complement eachiother (as.statedtin theirulemaking) and'. therefore, nuclear plans need not have explicit consideration for earthquakes. l l

  • In fact,.just as California goes beyond NRC requirements 'by establishing one ncy planning zones larger than.those required by NRC regulation

[ -781, 20 NRC 819, 829-30 (1984)], San Luis Obispo County (wherein Diablo Canyon is located) has also gone beyond NRC reoutrements:by specifically '. addressing earthquake complications incits radiological. emergency response plan for Otablo Canyon. Similarly, as the Appeal Board recognized in not requiring compliance.with.the-Cassission's. emergency. response. requirements in those portions of the.axpanded state planning. zones outside the federal planning zone, an applicant is not required' to demonstrate compliance with-additional state and local emergency planning requirements (20 NRC at 831-32). 1 1 0083S/0025K,

~ ~ ,888-TT88182 j I12T'33/18

Response

The issue should not be. adjudicated on a case-by-case basis: since; 'as .4 discussed.aboveg. them is no rational'hasis'fbr requiring nuclear facilities t ta cantime tueh law prEhnhility eMat? in their emdr2enCY Plans.'i The absence. of such consideration will not impair the Cosuiission's ability to make,the finding required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1.) that there is reasonable. assurance i adequate protective meas'ures. can.and.wi11 he taken iri the' event.: oft th. radiological amargency.:: Just anrit is unwise.to ifncus on a;sirigle accident scenario; it is also unwise to focus on a single: source of.disruptioniin ir i emergency response. The hallmark. of emergency response plans.is flexibility. i! Alternative 3. " Requiring.by rule that emergency plans specifically address the impact of earthquakes."

Response

For the' reasons discussed in -response to the preferred Alternative 1. there is no need for such a generic requirement. Moreover, as.the commission notes intthe SupplementaryiInfor1sation in the proposed rulemaking. (49 Fed. Reg. 49640), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has.an active program for earthquake emergencrplanning.. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of Igm (42:U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) assigns a central role for FEMA in hazard mitigation and emergency planning.. FEMA has O C0835/0025x, . - _ _ _ _. ~,,,,,. _ _,. -...

.-.,7

288([188182 (. til 23/18, '.' i ~ i .. meteorological condit.fons such as. dense fog or'. rain:'(possible. disruption of ari ' 'l'" evacuation route) or high wind (possible communications disruption). Since-the plans must be flexible enough.to; deal. with such' potential complicationsi

0.g.. provisions for alternate evacuation routes and backup:crwinications, :. -

they are sufficiently flexible to accommodate sfailar disruptions caused by ah earthquake. For example, the Of ablo Canyon amergency plan includes a, consideration of'." weather conditions.such as rain or fog. These. conditions occur with:some-J-" regul.arity; dense: fog (visibility less than!Y/4* mile) occurs approximately 88 times per year (See Evacuation Times Assessment forithe Diablo'Campon Nuclear.' i Power Plant at 7, September 1980; Applicant's Exhibit 78 at operating License Ifearing, January.19 26,1982, Transcript'.11765). Rain is: a common occurrence during the winter rainy seasort; indeed rainfall amounts.in excess of 1 inch-per hour have occurred four times in 8 years (Diablo Canyon Units:1 and 21 - Final Safety Analytit Repart: Update at 2.3J '))..It' fs not unmasonable te i require plans to consider complications from such events. It is 'unreasonabie-to. require: specific consideration of events such as earthquakes whom they are - indeed of significantly lower probability. i Alternative 2 Leaving the issue open for adjudication on a case-byMase basis e O 00835/0025K --

988 :-( 1188182 l^1Idi 22/19I intuitively obvious that the: compound probabilities.of an unrelated accident iand a i.urnsident-hoe probett11ty event suen as an eartnquase inrocess+of building codes are.1ess than 10'8 per reactor year..and thate therefore. the , Comnission bass a soundihasis for.the pe1.it,y 49ekppent that their speciffc - I , consideration is not.reituired. Another-case ;is the potential for.an earthquake up to the level oi' the safe . shutdown earthquake (SSE) to.cause:an accident. (The frequency:of the;SSE is 3 to 10*4 per year [CLI-84-4p19"NRC 937. 948 (1g84)3.) on the. order of 107 The Commission's regulationsealrea# require a comprehensive evaluation of the" i seismology and geology of the area secthat appropriate safeh systems have been. designed to withstand the maximum accelerations expected.. Sinceithe design requirements art: conservative, there is airea@.a built-iin-strgin of safety for nuclear plants to withstand an S'SE.' By. definition, the-i plant fa designed to withstand such an accidenLe..IL muuld hu unnecessary and i inconsistent ~for the Commission to make additional mquirements in the area of emergency planning. Other Considerations The emergency planning regulations and guidance [e.g.,10 CFR 50.47 (b) (10); mieFA-NAM, Rev.1; sections I.D and. II.J (1980)3 require that a range of protective actions be includediin an emergency plan so that it will be flexible enough to handle a variety of circumstances. The disruptions which could be caused by an earthquake are not unlike those of relatively frequent 0083S/0025K Se#{ 1100T82 ! { TIZi 32/T8 The. technical basis for the Commission's findings, asing Diablo Canyon;as an example, are discussed below.- several cases will be considered. Thip first case is an operating basia earthquake-(OBE) coincident wfth'a. ' - I serious nuclear accident.. The probability of a serious core melt acefdent . with en;offsite release which requires protectf.ve-actions is estimated its be-t 10-5;per year [See NRC: Staff's memorandum regarding consideration of effects - of earthquakes on, emergency planning at 4,tsubmitted May 3.1984. in response to CLI-84-4,19 NRC 937 (1984)].' If it were to have any potentf al for-I i. tapacting emergency response to such an: accident,.an: earthquake would probably i r have to occur within one week or less from the occurrence of tha accident [See i NUREG-0396, at 18 (Dec.197813. The probability of an- 08E. occurring wf thin this week can be derived. As an example, the 08E return period for Diablo Canyon is 275 years [LBP-79-26,10 NRC 453, 491.(1979)]. (275 years is the- . lowest value among a number of return. periods and is used here since it is ai conservative value.).The frequency per year at Diablo Canyon is 3.6x10-3,, or.7x10. 5 per week. The compound probabilitiy of the earthquake and scr16us '- - core me17. acc1 dent is then on the order of 10-' per year, or once every billion years of reactor operation. l Indeed, it is believed that, since the probability of a nonearthquake-induced accident with offsite consequences is so Tow (10-3 per reactor year), there i A ample justific.atinn far concluMng that the coincident escurrence 'of any; i low probabilityievent need not be considered:in amergency! planning, regardless of the quantification of that event's' frequency of recurrence. It is 1 0083s/Oc2st '

,908 1100184i '5 RT ZIi22/10 '. i ( ( ~ .20.NRC 249).. On. December 31,:1984, the U.3, Court cf Appeals' for.thesDistifict cf" Columbia Circuit affirmed CLI-84-12, holding that the Commission was within ? its discretion when it concluded that: ~ (1) the: probability-of an accident induced by an earthquake. ifs very_ :. remote since. the plant is.: designed to withstand:the Safe. Shutdown . Earthquake

  • and.the probability of a larger earthquake is therefore P

legally insignificant; ~ (2) the coincident occurrence of a major earthquake:which,could cause, significant disruption of offsite response capability and a seefous. unrelated nuclear power plant accident with, significant offsite i radiological. cansequences is so remote as to beiunworthy of: i. consideration; and (3) the emergencytplans are of sufficent flexibility to boxcapable of.. dealing with disruptions that might be expected if such an unlikely coincident event were to occur. i The San onofre and Diablo Canyon decisions are eminently reasonabla,and.have been sustained on.iudicial review. The proposed rule would merely codiff those decisions. 10 CFR 100, Appendix A, III(C) ocass/co2sK -

1804~('I100182 ii - {I 2.I' 22/18. i v il PGandE Letter No.: DCL-85-021 { e ENCLO3URE PACIFIC 8AS AND RFCTaTC CChipaNY'S COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RlLEMAKING.CONCERNING EARTHQUAKES AND EMERGENCY PLANNING. The Nuclear Regulatory Commiission (NRC.) has requested consents on: three- . alternatives toothe sub.iect proposed rulemaking'one earthquakes <and emergency' I planning announced,on December 21g.1984 (a9 Fed.: Reg; 49640).: iPacific Gas and 4 Electric. Company (PGandE) reconmends:that the first" alternative;icodificatioC '.l i of the Consission's decisionion this issue in.the Diablo Canyon and San onofre j ~ proceedings, be adopted.. Eacit.of the three alternatives is discussed below. i with particular emphasis on the first alternative; the preposed' rule. Alternative 1. " Adoption of the proposed rule explicity incorporating the i Constission's interpretation in San Onofre and Diablo Canyon.'

Response

PGandE believes that the proposed rule barring specific consideration of the complicating effects pf a coincident earthquake on emergency planning should be adopted by the Conunission. The issue of whether emergency response: plans must specifically consider the complicating effects of a coincident earthquake has received considerable attention in the Diablo Canyon Power Plant licensing proceedings. Theicommission. issued its order on August 10, 1984, reaffirming its earlier decision in the San onofre case- [CLI-81-33, '14 NRC 1091 (1981)] that its regulations do not require such specific consideration (CLI-84-12, 0083S/0025K :

209. .1188182.' J' I'Tt[i.22718 ( i GOCEET NUMBER .oe PR-So._ 6 p h?$49G40) PACIFIC G A s .'A N D ELE C T2t,2 C C o htPXNY DDGwE } n arms stacar. MN FMNCISCO,CAUFCANIA N1,H. uts)Mt.u11. M 930 3M.4s47 -m tasa susammer .mu m m January 22, 1985 PGandE Letter No.: DCL-85-021 ' Secretary of the Commission e e-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 . RE th E...p Attn: Docketing and Service Branch g c. ,q ...s w Re: Proposed Rule:.. Emergency Planning / Earthquakes-

i 91!?

4 G Federal Register, Volume 49, No. 247, Pages 49640-49643, 3 December 21, 1984 g r, a Gentlemen: Pacific Gas and.ElectriciCampan9? has reviewed the three alternatives: of:the subject proposed rule. Our camments on all thren alternettwes are enclosed. Sincerely. J. D iffer Enclosure cc: J. B. Martin Service List O i TS- . JPN 2 3 ~33E

,canewseccad '
<; c=M......, -..

1 p.cL,2T$'f C,, ?,5_ I

eig-gggasED RUl.B L gz 73 m ( [44W$ C.Kf*f*

  • 'S t.M

'85 JAN 22 P4:24

Dear ' ecretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

' cFF;cE :Hitche n. S 00CKET NG & SEPV!C, We the undersigned are' diametrically opposed to the NRC proposal to NM[f,of7;cg,g, H their policy of not considering the effects of earthquakes in emergency planning. ? f;r' nuclear power plants. Furthermore, we feel It' patently ab'surd and grossly negligent of the,Co'mmission ' to argue that.while ' hundreds of millions of dollars had to be spent to modify Diablo Canyon to withstand the effects of the nearby and active Hosgri Fault, no consideration need now be given to the effects of a major earthquake on , emergency planning. We are adamant in our conviction that earthquakes must be considered in the cmergency planning and are not so naive as to think that some, malfunction could not occur at Diab,lo during a major temblor that might necessitate evacuation. The foreshortened deadline of January 22, 1985 should be extended to March 15, 1985 in order to allow sufficient public comme'nt. Thereafter,. public hearings must be scheduled in order for those affected to have input into an. upgraded and more rational emergency plari. NAME ADDRESS 1. J d8 W /S'%0 Na.ws.o b, Slo., C6,c, G. qp 2.' b 250g Ausosva -day,n ged f b ' (3l9 bbAC.H-ST~ . % T3 f 3.

a. %tA/Cdn&...

//di /6Basc u n s o e w y s. -Md 7h b ( f 26% bbvyen er, s. L.c. 93c.e, 6. cy,f_ f (cc b o,o m g 7. &S & f f {Di qq ST Ly-)b C50 % C'.h 8. f

9. ! h h AlC l 2 C $~ k W h, h r1,0 l ()/j 0l}lJ,$ Q 49 L G, & E y d;._ Q j h x'O h%*s. z to.'W:%MA//7/8u-t 45 @4. 284tsr

.9 muw 4' ... 4,,

m gagga .( 8...- mama na N ci e. E M22 P4:07 Dear Secretar'y of the Nuclear R ulatory Commission:

  • y.

We the undersigned are diametrically opposed to the NRC proposal tih.. cial" ~ their policy of not considering the effects of earthquakes in emergency C for nuclear' power plants. Furthermore, 'we feel it patently absurd and grossly negligent of the Commis's.lon. to argQe that while hundreds of millions of dollars had to be spent to modify. Diablo Canyon to withstand the effects of the nearby,and, active.Hosgr* i Fault,

no, consideration need now be given to the effects of a major earthquake on emergency planning.

We are adamant in our conviction that earthquakes must be considered in the cmergency planning and are not so naive as to think that some malfunction could not occur at Diablo during a major temblor tha' might necessitate evacuation. t The foreshortened deadline of January 22, 1985 should be extended to March.15 1985 in order to allow sufficient public comment. Thereafter, public hearings must be scheduled in order. for those affected to have input into an upgraded and more rational emergency plan. NAME ADDRESS ~ h %4 (L., iY L (d $A~_1_.61stfor 1 I %9 hi M&,/ O fn f ( hhf gf.,; ?- 2. f p I w Ka arkt b s w o. S c u n d n e_ l 3.

n. NbL &cRA/td 85D Gevzca cr.bi6cis Gasa 4Ofei.

c

s. N M ( k
  • isse m sr.

wuu esw-w / s.u-suo a-rso muu e4.3 % f CS L a FC' Ew.s.& & O,' c4 . 4 7% .8. 3 ' {){l ,}% j)f,fj gyh/ Rj [ f

  • }

l ,t 6 /x DENSm O M Ch a t! 8 t e Y. 5 i.0.. C A f39sf. e. ,I f!bf~~' , i O f (,.v. In & O,~ n.J 92yrt 1o. /.n 2 3 E5 Q, w w.... . -,/}[ m r-m.czspn 4-

6 0 ( G n p d ack uaz z w p y / u

  • YS WV A

a y a u ~" n ne ar as ay ag y' a &. ], 4 4. ^ ~ & % w ~ 5 4 & c p yd 107 4 W

  • f 0W yg, p y g

cea $/ w y _- f &, G d u n o / Y --=-.m .m.. g eID

  • ** mmus -

e-e a. que se emsee. e amempgeum-me .m e e M. 9 ND e ages 9 O O .-GG S Ne e.in g ( O

c. = nou P R.G49FL44ps) g < -4.q 'g"* /2 /98t hl, f 0. j. ...y.. -- b_cbkk d2 2055[ ~85. JM 22 P4:17 Q.llh.' 00 0 % b & hwk crncE c.: me-sr. J ocentiwa.a sEma ky0N b O nad~L & aa.lu>"$ z f fa da E p %.w ua & p +l $ ff S+ " "" "S. !**5 0 /~' L tv~d a~~t~J offAad i LAae. - sd Jr ?fw & 6/daksgat % M/M a saat 9 a a a m .eao x p s, a d s n L pesq g/e,/ Am & J ial 4 tuo wc/Z,s/n,4t 74 O m p m af Add & A 7da' y * ~/ A iJJ4, e.aadg_ /vn a s u / e i D, A g & a a m d A, 7 a ' w 1' 6 y. a. w & u a s - 1 a s / A a zi, u a r 1 M.. sig d~ aqfeard-RJ M y:: y z gw w u cw ny, r s auanJ k a w fi &,st - ?> a cA sr u / A cmsauog fu osJ r/ a hwAov p as,A / 72 ' l .u4.J 7=, 4 b),au.4 / &,u L7 Qu' A+ /a-~. .. y a sy.a npy.pm. .t,r r ed ioqg(z( v/Y*vv7 ~ =c.,=-,._ s y' M O L

000 % A GMe4944) 900NMED k.i T@ C..sc e Tesophone(412) 3ss.aoao . SIM ' Nucieer oM ien P. o. son 4 shippingport PA 15077 0004 iTani'= m 18 1985 g

  • M'22 P3:34 Secretary of the &=niasion U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca minsion CFAC: u 00Cx& g u g.;f Washington, DC 20555 g.

??,NCH Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Beference: Proposed Rulemaking, 10GR 50 Bnergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and' U*ilivation Facilities G mtlemen: We have reviewed the proposed rule addressing the impact of earthquakes on amergency planning, as p'h14=hed in the Federal Register (49FR49640) and have the* following ccnnents for your considerat.1.cn. The >A rule as written offers the nest logical ccabination of emaidaring earthquakes and their inpact on each utilities emergency preparedness planning. As an NBC requirement to design and construct a nuclear facility such that maiamic activity up to and including the safe shutdcnn earthquake (SSE) will not result in a significant accidental release, the.need to spae4 Fie=11y address the impact of earthquakes in emergency plans beyond the consideraticn already provided is considered unnecessary. Uhe. plant seismic design centers around the worst case pos+n1=+ad-sei=mic activity the plant may experience over its operating lifetime. Pre-licensing reviews provide the ow 1.b.tnity to ch=11ange any given =aiamic design. men a e design is considered acceptable, the likelihood of an accidental r=iiningical release has been suffi~ iently radne=4 through the NRC's defense,in depth c approach. Any further evaluations in the emergency planning area will not further reduce the lika14hnna of such an event c-r-ing. The plants are sa4 =mie=11y qualified for area geology and contingencies for mai=mic activity, even activity deramined to be less than the opera + inn =1 Basis Earthquake (OBE), are addressed in Emergency Plans and Implementing Prnead ves at Beaver.. tt-Valley. Because considerations have been given to disruptions caused by ' earthquakes, the emergency plans have flexibility to handle disruptions caused by various natural phanemana. For this reason and the ccmnents above, we agree with the proposed rule. In adds. tion, there are other low-prnhahi1ity naturally occurring phencrnena which would also be woriate for this rulenaking. 'Ihe likalihnna of any accidental release occurring proximate with any other low-prnhability event should be evaluated in the same manner as for earthquakes and their impact on emergency planning. Very truly yours, 1 h . D. Sieber pavacg Senior Manager, suc1 ear croup

- - - ~ ranscripts show foff recorf materialigg,,ini,li$~ini@ke Carl Neiburger ~ Fr else, televislog station, The ' been unable to deve1 ) any convine. ' egg ' 9 tal)ning thpl ' j.i r,al to psalie;aidecistop pWriter rtallylop h enl toad,caqt sacerpts Tliers ljC staff view radonalbasis for he PG& a4d;*i (een b godjato piss ds t p [., p.: i b.... - N hicar llegulatory Commisslog ' mee Apg r9eonis quoted NRC.inar effects of es t the copip al-uakes on emer.f.f RC i. don't want to have a e abers acknowleged using mate ' altarosys as y t il was gency responsg ps no copsid. Discuss _, study,i d sa, 1 hqual6es prp reauy no worse 4 in (NRC , and not on the record during closed-to consi-eration.": & - M' i og or whatent;;,. Onog J' ) discussions last summer of the.' illegal for the hereyou're a way,". Q . der the trpnscripts its decislop., ~lsopa think it wopkl a ' Nunzio Palladino, feared that theinotbe'inthereoil laformation tilat may '. raordina neredulous the commission draw We Canyon nuclear power plant. 4 The issue.in the m9ptings ;was chairman, said he Wripts show. whether the commission was legally cord.t' i a a rf %. thpt the on determined ni hearings would delay limalag of. In one exchange, Pallapl on'T conunission ultimately voted r utred to hold hearings on how an i the Diablo plant. ' NRC stalf attorney She in Cali(9tnia."..... t s 2.19H, to license the plant es would affee, emergency pas soon as you hear.the word, batch whether the commission could.? In another part of %~ irnh plans .4-blulog Ppcific (las ' $ A sedertys from their attor- , you hearp much time use theilnfonnation in lp f eef..' 1! y appellate court up-plant. e p, he said. l !8, Martin Malsch,* another N C las j 't 1 without hearings.' W that decision Dec. 31,19H. 'NitC Gene CounselflerzelH.E.. Palladino acknowleged that the ti Trubachireplied,' "Well, then'i Mothers for Peace, which ha transcripts of the meetings ~ Plaine had warned the commission ~ commission was gliscussing a 1991 you'll leave yourself.open both pro i fought licensin chtained by Kit 0N, a San era in a memorandum, ". We have PG&E study,of gar (hquake and cedurally to the challenge lhalgjg W,,. 4.o Q... i.-.... +~2~""""""'"*"'" c... . x.

NRCpapers reveal lVegalp(ocedwes (Continued from Page A-1) erts.

E8.0 lic information director, declined to - for the commission to consider the Trubatch later said the commis-discuss the transcripts, saying they material: slon could justify a decision to had pot been officially releated,by "No one in the proceeding had a license plable without hearings, as the commission. chance to challenge it. They (Moth-it ulthnately decided to do: He insisted, however, that the ers for Peace) tried to challenge 1,t "We have a strong argument that commission acted legally and that Diablo is safe: and were prevented from doing so.' it would be extraordinanly unfair to . The commission made its When Commissioner Thomas Rob. PG&E to delay the plant.... IL erts asked how long it would take to would be unfair to the public to ment on Diablo Canyon en the hold hearings on the earthquake - delay their benefits "n that it meets commission safety issue, Trubach said.."The extreme trequirements and could be operated would be to hold up the license untg Sandy Silver of Mothers for Peace safely. That (safety) is our.giara-the issue is adjudicated. I don't said the transcripts proved that the mount concern in all licensing mat-think there's going to be a wild NRC Ignored safety and violated its ters." round of applause for that al(erna. own rulesin licensing Diablo. Fouchard said federal law per-tive." "The Mothers for Peace has been mits the commission to conduct Roberts asked, "liow long would dealing within the law for years," closed hearings. it take to do that?" she said. "We have used the legal Ron Weinberg of PG&E said this "Well, the estimate is three to process, and we are the only ones morning that PG&E had not yet nine months. I would say 'nine who have played by the rules. The issued a statement on the tran-months is NRC did an sad run around the scripts. He said that the issue con-bolch said,probably leo short,",Tru-rules." cerned the NRC's condvet, not t "That's ma comNh" aald Rob. Joseph Fouchard, the NRC's pub 7 PG&E's. _A

^ ' ( .m2: SS*3my /7 /II Syn 3 :TJL5 a uw1 49 Fe 4%+6) s e m o,, 4 4 Le c _ rr(r; m % \\e>v R jv n<- lows rth - %:I? Wst -jk<, h.c :' u rer 35 a;22 p,_, Sevedrf L w rowwehv<. MR$5N,gilke wbt. ogal.i %g y>o\\.i-.j "uk o rde<g 4e. feh> & ewl-J v u cte4r.ome, pike "(y g e; t.7,; ~g p-/ a Lon of.. y (_43 %\\egm Tv,ka, y A.c, a, y,,rr, P G e. O e e e b$0 OY f a u n>+ust A cc.y. % fe, ck n v: / Enclaw n w w.. nu n m

( t + Secretary of the Commission January 1.7, 1985 other direction. However, it is difficult to see how the limited position about earthquakes could be adopted and maintained without dealing similarly with other ~ natural events of approximately the same low probability. There is also an obvious draftsmanship problem, which is that singling out earthquakes might seem to imply that all other natural events not explicitly excluded, coinciding with or causing releases, must necessarily be planned for. This regulatory question has been before the NRC staff since December 8, 1981. Now, having used more than three years to Produce a simple proposal, the agency is asking members of the industry - and, more to the point, ordinary citizens who lack the industry' s kn~owledge to respond with their comments and to provide their information within thirty days that span major holidays. In the circumstances, and if the Commission really desires useful contributions, a sense of proportion demands giving citizens as a whole (and the few i experts who may choose to respond) something more like six months rather than thii,cy days to do so. Whether or not that would elicit more response is problematic, but it certainly would enhance the Commission's ability to defend its course if it eventually adopts an earthquake regulation of the kind proposed. or a broader one about not treating similarly improbable natural events. very truly yours, A J. P. Hogan Senior Counsel JPH/lm 4 O O 6 ,,,-,-_.--s ,m,_.,, _,,,_-,_,,,.-m

ootsEE 8"atBEN j E E E M L. ELE.E , h M 4 T O d) ,..,.u....g.. UG!N.I GA Technologies Inc. 'aEEE % m um 0 El 22 P2 *27 (419)455-3000 hfh,thC, jQ LAW DEPARTMENT 5

RANC.H January 17, 1985 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Reg'latory Commission u

Washington D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: This is stirred by the proposed rule the Commission published on December 21,1984, at 49 Federal Register 49640. Comments by January 22, 1985, were solicited. A regulation about considering such improbable natural events as earthquakes that are causes of serious releases of radio-active material from power plants or only coincident with such releases certainly poses complexities. Clearly, they are not limited to the difficulty of forecasting events and their effects, but extend also to delicate practical ques-tions of how much cooperation can be expected from hard-pressed local governments. In the time available, GA is not able to prepare substan.tive views it would be willing to advance on the relationship between earthquakes and emergency planning, nor comments about specific policy and technical reasons for preferring one alternative rather than another. There is, of course, an intuitive feeling that the whole matter of emergency planning can readily be pressed so far and complicated so much that it becomes a device by which applicants, licensees, local 1 46 eivernment agencies, and the Commission harass one another, - each in its turn. It seems to make sense that the effects of earthquakes coincident with or causal of radioactivity releases shoul'd be excluded from emergency planning requirements because they are so extremely improbable and because they are dealt with in plant engineering where they should be. It is refreshing to see the agency contemplate a step in that rather than the Q N : '335 m y, e e v.,=,-1....... : g ny.

coms nour'3 maamm mi R-A g ( 649 FA4964df _,..' l .m 55 ' .e Y$bN-%$0 DW Tw15; Mrs W Y v cr& Naut N R.Q # 6 is o.u ek mq-Emmhp, r 4, 3 10 AWj m00.hgyQ.d ' g the. propsed o.mendwAs %at mo61d elivncnaxe %. need ~Sce 'amrafdar; p:)TOAffaA G.orthyN ht ebnrA pascedures $ o'%c #wshe czztteny, e -(cf2,uc.h cassendMs afe *1 ptann " M ipoe a."- Tk.sg l millfn,, odds M such proce.dores urold ever-i bE, veeded 1-62e\\ %se tvt tha case-@ 'W@~ "' i awr % ~ &Y(L' (Y yS3 c 3 MM 9i M C. t, 4 y PM i VMo(Cpt M9 is e> i pc. .4 1 b 3bshigton, D.t. zos&s- 'r. Doesrtn3 e s2rutte Bro.ch ...f Ack;% vMCsild I'! 0:*.!d.... /." a-~

( ( I hope the NRC can show a modicdm of good faith, and extend the - deadline for comments. I would appreciate your earlist possible - response to this request. Sincerely, 6:=2LS Nina Bell Assistant Director oc: File e 9 e e S e S S e J t-e y + y w -y w w w-r

oous**8'g_f4 i ( 3 0110I2D W 3 Q9 FRAWoO/ WiWF Nucear In"ormation and Resource Servi w an 22 p3:33 1346 Connecticut Avenue NW,4th Floor. Wamington D.C. 20036 (202) 296-7552 EMC. _ SECb_i,.; - v-OCCMgi;.NG & sgr.vic! January 17, 1985 Samuel Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary ,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William Clements, Chief Docketing _and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Propos~ed Rule on Emergency Planning and Earthquakes

Dear Sirs:

I am, by this letter, requesting an extension of thirty days to the deadline for public comment on a proposed rule which would eliminate the consideration of earthquakes.in emergency preparadeness planning. This proposed rule was published in the Federal Registier on December 21, 1984, 49 Fed. Reg. 49640. Due to the holidays,.which affected mail delivery and caused office closures, we did not receive the Federal Register until January 2, 1985. Some of our members report that they did not receive copies of the notice sent from the NRC until Saturday, January 12, 1985. We_ received our copy of the notice on January 10, 1985. Thus, -st a minimum, twelve dayr had already elapsed after publication of the rule before most' people were able to begin to prepare comments,,and for many the time was more seriously curtailed. L The deadline for comments is presently scheduled for January 22, 1985, resulting in an impossibly short period of time in which to prepare them. Frankly, it appears as if the Commission is attempting to diminish the amount of public involvement in this rulemaking due to the timing of the notice and the short comment period. The contents of the recently-leaked transcripts of closed Commission meetings on this very subject also provide insight regarding the Commission's motives. For example, at page 83 of the August 3, 1984 meeting on Diablo Canyon, Chairman Palladino states that, while "we need a generic proceeding to -- to get public input," on_the other hand "we [shouldl say something about doing it on an expidited basis just to improve our court chances." Notwithstanding the Chairman's comments, expiditing a proceeding is not generally known for increasing public input. ~$5'p-b5'oY.!I[ W o*hfpr:fbyc::sf, Z "a M -- =

( l COORDINATING GROUP ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IMPLEMENTATION d Arkansas Power & Light Co. Baltimore. Gas & Electric Co. Boston Edison Co. Carolina Power & Light Co. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. Commonwealth Edison Co. Consolidated Edison Co. Detroit Edison Co. Edison Electric Institute Florida Power & Light Co. GPU Service Co. Long Island Lighting Co. Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. Mississippi Power & Light Co.. Nebraska Public Power District New York Power Authority Northeast Utilities Service Corp. Northern States Power Co. Omaha Public Power' District Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Southern California Edison Co. Toledo Edison Co. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. Virginia Electric and Power Co. i e 9 5 e e e e e e G 8

gQ M @.no nus $-5d w W449w) Q '~ m p 4 p~ .~' M KMC, Inc. 801187H STREE~ N.W Ir}jf.-. / - @*, SulTE 300 WASHINGTON. DC. 20006 12C2) 293-4200 January 7, 1985 Secretary to the Commission V.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On December 21, 1984, the Commission published a proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50 that would impact Emergency Planning and Preparedness at Production and Utilization Facilities. On behalf of KMC and the Coordinating Group on Emergency Preparedness Implementation, consisting of twenty seven utilities (listing enclosed), we request that the public comment period be extended to 60 days from the date of publication from the thirty day period indicated in the Federal Register notic'. e The proposed rule requests comments on three possible alternatives to the present rule. The Commission indicated in the notice that they "would be most assisted by comments which offer specific policy and technical reasons for preferring one alternative over the others." We believe that a thirty day comment period is insufficient time to prepare meaningful comments, particularly since the period included the holiday season with shortened work weeks, and with many individuals on annual leave. We believe an extension'of the comment period to February 22, 1985 will allow interested parties to provide the Commission with better information for making their final determination in this matter. Sincerely, Paul F. Collinc Senior Associate 'a ^l s) m cncl. -t 5 @it - won../ ;.f5~_..._...=o/_

c (

    • ,:S FX BER @,g

^ 29CFDSED KULE HAnxox, WEISS & f.49 F2 4%+6) ORDAN aooi s sTatzt.w.w. SUITC 430 WASHINGTON,*6 C.2Oob9 P 3 3 CAIL McGRECVY HARMON TELEPHONC Eu.vu n. weiss tacassas.asco wituaw s.sonoAN. ::: ye,:ig ciAuccun"^N 00CKE~.. Si'V,*, EEAN n. TOUSLEY {',..,= January 16, 1985 William Clements, Chief Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Clements:

I am writ $ing on behalf of the Union' of Concerned Scientists ~ to request an extension of 'the deadline for commenting on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed emergency planning rule, published December 21, 1984, at 49 Fed. Reg. 49640. The proposal sets a commenting deadline of January 22, 1985. UCS intends to comment on the proposal. However, several factors, including the coincidence of the comment period with the Christmas holidays and UCS' participation in Three Mile Island restart hearings during December and January, have made it impossible for UCS to comply with the January 22 deadline. Therefore UCS requests that the Commission extend the deadline. until February 25, 1985. Sincerely, Diane Curran. 9 e e e 9 --o a&bv 2 y> a Asimledgedbyemed.1....y

005E5 *dtESM.Q2090$s., RUI ( (44 t=2.4%46] ( ( i i 1 8 5 ( _.N mhntES.OD%,../.5 ' '~ 1 hf.tb ._ d-O.. M.. M 62t*5i ~ ~ -\\-o e.*_nd... he -h'Ene _6rnd -Gr l ccccide< e-h'o.c._e E._ che n.A e_ 4 g e Pa:09 .. e>n..eer._.\\k cps %=s__ard._.ev&m ~ m i ..-Ot>r. B t a s.e Caay.ca. _ The. destngi4- _... o V ..3enecy_99__.pices rak._3we.... __._.. mbe shed._p. arches... ar>J_J ccM>d.uals b chbe. -b m k a s 4 it.r.f s>.r t a o i --_sec3 _.insb makor2_._ t-4'._ ycu..donM..u-Y.cc ~ ...... -Re.__cie.ad _bo.e._ d. ud\\.\\. Rareer_rry.....__ l ._. beiJe.C 4heh you jam:A. hew _ _Le_ pec>pbs.. besk..ltrerest m twn4. ._. _. __ jig.ceo4_ kxdfev.e___.yca_ arc _ eco consdet.i Mb d m b a 6 __c R _ c ar_ % - m aara tsbetoe .cw$_.gesds;Ldies. -.1n c>or ._.._p._5)E>.5 }E O 2 is c# J m.. -< e. a i' J3ue Casc @ Cuncsw ,,,,' ac6 % U > 2m m nweed '/ o I. S.u._.o ' Ca. l~ ':r3 m ). I ._.. i -~ ks i,, 2 ra > N ,"'W2 ._JAN 2 21985 / o. Aaknendedgetf by emnf.._ __ __... _ _nx- /

mers mapSt.D anas is R 5D.. ( (49 F2.4-qw) % 15,1985

  • s.

P12:6 d) ..u~ . i. h.& t b-LJ , b c... Aosse h. nG ^ %uun ' N. 3oc>z.e.nj.g d Sew.U.t. h cA. g CA94')09l s T; ta \\t % G ewuwut.- I kue., Ac.a.a. t>.uct_ tc.a. NRc co cowa.idg n.a.ut cmdn sn+-aqgn uc p e q. g a.,, r, p q r u u s o_ %. p m p. I e o ohd., n ct g W> > a<, 1 .Ih G; __a. uA u-h Jy Q &L. tru. U.S. _t oo o__ e+axa t w o w e LLo us.e.cl +o lloul.ed c nn41 o% peuse pt y em %p ef a.n J_a.N. t.h 2y Jy> t,_.. Io ut_.b* e > ' o t Q % Jav_Lt,f Lo ( hacL i.o h o e' 3. u na e L - ( c c u g. tea. M q cu.cu.a et. %. o etya. Lo m -- wf. LE; /L o w.ea.c tta. h_. & b_a..dAaanw_4n4.;yM- .. h k 0 _0 O.b= OW h-! p 64.L f is -b gr 6 et. %. 66-V t>f ef_[ylf f' Q 9f l b. Ltn;L.a E+e.% - y.4c_ yewt d es._wmg_, '. =4. not sAb; tate. 10+ s+asowc g &_J tettb y e. d.g. ec.ua, c4Tu ie. Cdibm.n.i_a,.a.n.d.h.,..foc__ .{ 4 s o l z i @.'I r p srtew g,. j v... .u. 1

J m3 py c L gvL.mo) ? lh, k ~ Yi k Nad: 1 00)M.f - W 3,ym s + u f a a v -, ~ ~. C$hfy{r.hCff1.x* ml W 4- . Yl C. ..;... p,,,.. b: y y.- -. ~. ! t.;.4.~r "M: - 5.. '... c. 3 2.. g l.) ~ . r.;...... .R . C.,.. N hX4 'w- [. - j." ? .,.?,,p

;; ;f y...
..

g.- WQ 2 ....-r~I,r:. s l a.,.. ...:.. m &. ='y Wsh.- ., r'

y. '- ;.

m %,g s:t. n

. g...
r.. s

-- w . t.' g' 6,. 5 1e; ; .. c &.. ...,;I~ .: '. ".:3 & ~ e. .~ -,. r[g' '. :. . C a. _.a ~,. .>a A' a. a. ..-4.%,a,ssy.,w, -. ,.'.,.-4.. <*(..,. -.;3. 3,.4,a 23,. :. - r - . ;p r ......?- .~~.r,-

  1. 1.. -

- :Wn:*&r;<.', .;.f-R.

~

.~ -.. -,,-- :v N?.T5EE ; .i.,,.1. '. ~.1.. '5-4.. ' -'f -d' ~

se..

..i. . 7,. w - -t;. m sc R i;.. u2. _ ,,; %,; g,.,,;,,. g ;, ;;g,,g. 4,,,,,,,, 'y 5G-%%: % ' f.y.W g. jpga 4Mg5 -~u ~. xamere.g.,.< : oy y.. .,. ?... ~ J s.s '. .w - d' e. =. a ..o.. e.a.,,.t3 j t. 3..,,,....- e.-.... s e J ..gg,. .. g s.. l ~,..m-- l .. ~. . ~.. . p,'.f.'J;,.g,g,. ,3 i t ..y p....i,.4.. ,,.u,gy ir.3..,. qdg ., ;,t~- t l - +. - ~ s.-.m - ' - - ...U.....:.u.. w h b iW f \\ -

(. teG Mf(bg $ g 990EIMD IULL I {.49FS49HO) ~ .--o ~ 7 P2:1:- L ' ;i 000*:ET..., i f... 5:a;u l-e 85 gatnap,sfcAnse er uAL-A 1.oc6t unusaAirr,A,.wtag pg fM)oA 6 EhhWq ACWeST 'tb cua. Art. 8ohnt Oncr 9a (N PW.w4 6VA Wo4 ATGME,s_W,,, n wOt$.oFesitt %nug Pt. ANN.N q.m p%y-e. grg, pggi gyp.es $c* $0GT"h bW.,$M Obb1" oP M... tac 00 M A 1AN4CR 4hA K NkE OC W Q /lA E L.4 J, AN % AAGr C.M 'Tb 5 sti A NW X.Mr

  • iis 5hA4.tw),y Mth (1 do Mt4H

'7 HAT '7Hr-C fr(Chuc' A.ug ItOhAN1 Mb p m cr or u m.m.s e n o iRc447'(bN(f." ~i*15 h h4 T nm muumc w uM. idf % W EChi.m M Pt#W,y t g qggs og MThi.s.'Tuf Anon e %r AW.t&R id(Jhet Muth a t m. t % 14, c K..en.ue ACD0 ( Md., CF. lEcumaislau.e,4 weet grum ND NCHNotM1 K@M-Ac/ nun-EWE *oer,ter g ...-.N _d. 4b.._C.%. i ~ e J N R Crossman f 1 7 Ale A v C 0g ,7 % W a m d v p u o i., FF" r~ .M r -~ -- _s

  1. asp tts - 3c i

SCch %. ' on 'ht We c. InrN botEdN(, 9is.wis AA.AAsW W 4 5 4s y te E A c. 20555 1 mo I g.u a en =tTi.%"#t w w w =,, J

L. ( car.t w,s g g w-rz. oe0Pms RUI.h I f ($ 58 $ $ )._ y s.,. n ,., elant c. htTHet l y; l c 1 .,a n n e ont sr. e 4 6,, % a= =, ca wees ,ta g ~ ~.,.' -i ~ > a Ei = sc.s us Ptna.u-Q Q,N wup, tc, 2# fMfh'. Doc Vt.h'Q y.suutee (y,,,, C USPS 1981 \\ w JLccQ c.ucerneL ys./Luq% yesseW- \\% e M~echQ % c.a.wAtakaf .e.a.Jk.qu k L p nsy w evs M \\ym.57,l.4vmg w h % M S p h,i >re cw. y ce ~. I sq%ge p +e 6ndt so < N k mk f;n s .a>M R A 0 9 p s k i.e. occ" ~ - na hg i p =_=. n. # :.. - w th.ta el l t .......mJ4 P - - ~~' \\(. d Mri(g 3%!> -- mw...JAN 171985 i -= ...........=L / - --}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20141G942&oldid=4185918"