ML20148C749

Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards App H & I Documents.Documents Also Available in PDR

ML20148C749
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/18/1988
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	Belair R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
References
FOIA-87-794 NUDOCS 8803230027
Download: ML20148C749 (3)

Text

S. NUCLEAR REGULATOAY COMMISSION Nat som atoutst Nuveta s.

F01A-87-794 g.

f* % -

- l r

6.tspoNSt TvPt i j RESPONSE TO FREED d l ' ^ ^' I X I ""'

\,, ,f INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST g y g jggg m csit u .i.s m ,. - .ae.

KEQutSita Robert R. Belair PART I -RECORDS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED ISee c^ecaed bones)

No agency records subsect to the roovest have teen located.

No additonal agency records sobrect to the request have been located Agency records wbtect to the ret that are centihed e Apperda H _ are airany avalaNo for pu%c arspection and cops a the NRC PWic Document Room.

X 1717 H Street. N W. WasNngton, DC Agency records subsect to the roovest that are asentded e Append >= I .._. are beq made asadatde for pubhc especton and copyeg a the NRC Pw%c Document X Room.1717 H Street. N W . Washegion. DC e a fonder under the rotA number and requester name The nonpropretary versson of the proposesi that you agreed to accept e a teWhone comersaton wth a member of rey statt e now bemg made avadable for pwDLc escectcc and coveg at the NRC Pu%c Document Room.1717 H Street. N W . Was*egion. DC , e a toider under tNs FoiA number aM 'eovester name Enclosed as eforenat.on on how you me, obtam access to and the cha ges for copyeg recor:ss placed a the NRC Pu%c Document Room.1717 H Street. N W., W ashegton. DC Agency records hbr ect to the request s's enclosed Aav apphcable charge for copes of the records prowded and payment procedu res are noted m the comments secton.

Ricords swDioct to the request have been referred to a%ther Federal agency (esi for reve* and doect respor'se to you in vew of NRC's resoones to this roovest. no fu rther action es becg taken on appeal 4t er cated PART ll. A-tNFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Certam informaton e the reovested records e beng *.thheld from pubhc d,scicsv er ow svent e to the Fot A esemptons descreed m and for the reasons stated e Pa111. sec-tons 8. C. and D Any re+ eased portons of the documeets for which only pad of the record e beeg ethbend are being made awadabie for pupc anspecton and copyeg m the NRC Pupe Document Room.1717 H Street. N W.. Washegton, DC. m a foloer unde < tNs FOIA number and 'eovester na*e Comments Saga at Diascrom Div5 ' Cs avtgr ogconos M

• 5

/

. 8803230027 880318 PDR FOIA E..

BELAIR87-794 PDR NIC FORM 464 + Pet n 19 @

Re: FOIA- 87-796 APPENDIX H

~

RECORDS MAINTAINED AMONG PDR FILES

. NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION

.l. 2/6/87 SECY-87-35, "Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal with Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite l

Emergency Planning," Acc. No. 8702130141

2. 10/13/87 SECY-87-257, "Emergency Planning Rule," Acc . flo. 8710280038 U

J N

t 1

h

, , - - - , , ----.,-,.--,.,,-,,,,---__.-n,_,.r.,-,,, c,...,,....-,n-,,-. - - , - , ,-~m-~.-----,-,. ,.,,--,.-,.,--n ,-,w., , - , ,

Re: FOIA- 87-794 APPEN0lX I RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE POR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER NUM8ER DATE DESCRIPTION

1. Undated Correction Notice to SECY-87-35 "Consideration of Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal .with Lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning,"

(2pages)

2. Extracted pages from SECY-87-35, dated 2/6/87, bearing handwritten annotations by a staff person. (7 pages)

3. Extracted pages from SECY-87-257, dated 10/13/87, bearing handwritten annotations by a staff person. (8 pages)

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH Lo2BY VTH RCCR t1 MA%ct rtAct 1W M STit1ET, N t umasNT TASHINGToN, D C. :0045891 j; axe ua so:u u c.tstt MM Ft lilH nurnc+.t en raae m n.4ni Trux +<:c. rt oc u im a ituCCeZA $2) 74400 ffTT5MCl4, PA 15:22 Int ggy g ggg t412) 31$4m acu raw november 25, 1987 EFiSDOM OF INFORMATION HAND DELIVERED ggy gggggg7 Director, Office of Administration FoIA-p m Nuclear Regulatory Commission RgCll-35-P'7 Room 4210 Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 _

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Gentlemen:

On behalf of our client, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York, we request, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 9 552 ("FOIA"), and the rules of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") issued thereunder,10 C.F.R. Part 9, copies of ,any agency records in the possession or control of the NRC relating to the recent NRC rule amending 10 C.F.R.

50. 4 7 ( c ) (1 ) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E., except as expressly excluded below. The Final Rule concerns the "Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off-Site Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants at the Operating License Review Stage Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Participate in Of f-Site Emergency Planning" and is set forth at 52 Fed. Reg. 42078 (1987)

("Rule"). Without limiting this request, but merely to assist the NRC in identifying records which are responsive to this request, the records which we seek relate to the following:

1. All documents authored by employees of the NRC or others dated between October 13, 1987, and November 3, 1987, which relate to the Rule including, but not limited to, documents which relate to: (a) SECY-87-257, dated October 13, 1987, or portions thereof; (b) notes or memoranda of conversations concerning the Rule; (c) analyses pertaining to the legality of the Rule or portions thereof; (d) any analyses related to the so-called "realism" concept discussed in the Rule; (e) communica-g-7 l Z 2 'f C 1 & f f j'jo.

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Director, Of fice of Administration November 25, 1987 Page 2 tions or meetings concerning the Rule f rom or to or with any person or entity, and any consideration given by any person at the NRC to any such commun cations or meetings I; (f) the deletion in the Rule of certain parts of the double spaced portier. ef SECY-87-257, namely lines 10-16 on page 21 and lines 23-27 on page 28 (see Attachment 1 hereto which highlights the deleted portions which are being referred to); and (g) the addit:on in the Rule of the portions of the Rule highlighted in Attach ent 2 hereto, (i.e., (1) 52 Fed. Reg. 42082, col. 2, starting at "The Long Island Lighting . . . ." and continuing through col. 3 ; the line ending " American histcry amply demonstrates;" (2) 52 Fed.

Reg. 42084, col. 2, line 5, beginning "The final rule . . . ."

and continuing through 52 Fed. Reg. 42085, col. 2, up to "Eackfit analysis;" and (3) 52 Fed. Reg. 42086, col. 1, bottom of page, beginning "In addressing . . . ." through col. 2, up to "Appendix E-(Amended).")

2. All draf ts of SECY-87-257 and all documents which form the basis for it or relate in any way to it. This request does not include any of the rulemaking comments submitted pursuant to the March 6, 1987, Federal Register Notice ( 52 Fed. Reg. 6 ?S0) .

3. All versions (draft and final) of the Congress:enal testimony and questions and answers ref erred to on page 2 cf SECY-87-257 (Attachment 3 hereto identifies the referenced testimony and questions and answers in greater detail) .

4. All documents relating to whether nuclear plants licensed under the Rule would provide a lesser or dif f erent level of safety than plants licensed with state and local government participation in amergency planning.

5. All documents reflecting any NRC communications or meetings with the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")

concerning the Rule and/or any analysis or description of the FEMA comments on the proposed rule, dated April 28, 1987

( Attachment 4 hereto is a copy of the FEMA comments).

l Such communications or meetings include such contacts involving the White House Staff, including the Of fice of Science

& Technology and the Of fice of the Science Adivsor, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, any utility company, companies, trade associations, or representatives of any of these, and/or members of Congress or their staf f s.

,l

F' l l

KIRKPATTUCK & LOCKHART Direct:r, Office of Administration Novemter 25, 1987 page 3 i

6. All documents relating in any way to criteria for FEMA and/or NRC review of utility plans under the Rule and the bases for any such criteria, including all documents related in any way to the f ollowing paragraph in the November 9, 1987, letter from Victor Stello, Jr., NRC, to Dave McLoughlin, FEMA:

In developing evaluation criteria and in reviewing utility sponsored offsite emergency response plans, FEMA should assume that in an actual emergency, state and local officials will (1) exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, (2) cooperate with the utility and follow the utility offsite plan, and (3) have resources sufficient to implement those portions of the utility offsite plan where state or local response is necessary.

This request includes all documents related to any need to publisa any review criteria for public comment and/or the use of revie.' criteria on an interim basis pending completion of public comment.

In the event that access is denied to any of the records responsive to this request, please supply the following informa-tion:

a. Identify the record or withheld portion of the record and specify the sfatutory basis for the denial, as well as your reason for believing that an exemption applies, as required by 10 C. F. R. 5 9.10 ( b) .

b. Segregate the nonexempt from the allegedly exempt portion of any withheld records and release the former, as required by 10 C.F.R. 6 9.5(b).

c. Supply a detailed statement of the content of the with-held document or portion thereof, along with the date on which that document or portion thereof was written; its section heading or title; and an identification of any persons or entities who have received copies of such records or portions thereof, as required by applicable case law. Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-827 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

d. Separately state your reasons for not invoking your discretionary power to release the allegedly exempt records or portions thereof.

J KIRKPATRICK & l.OCKHART Di rector , Of f ice of Adr inistrat ion November 25, 1987 Page 4 The undersigned w;11 pay charges for search time and copying f ees, as provided by N?.C regulations, 10 C. F. R. 5 9.*4. If search and copying fees to be incurred by the unders;gr.ed will exceed $300, please r.o:ify the undersigned before th:s sum is exceeded.

We expect to receive your response to this FOI A request within ten (10) work:ng days of your receipt of this request, as required by the FOIA, and as set forth at 10 C.F.R. 5 9.9(a) .

Sincerely, Robert R. Belair 4 Attachments

]

i I .

^^

a  : L .. ,.n ,

evaluating the adequacy of a utility's emergency plan. The NRC's realism doctrine is grounded squarely in cocinon sense. As the Comission stated in t.ILC0, even where state and local officials ' deny they ever would or could cooperate with (a utility] either before or even during an I l

accident,' the NRC ' simply cannot accept these statements at face value."

24 NRC 22, 29 fn, 9. It would be irrational for anyone to suppose that ,

in a real radiological emergency, state and local publib officials would refuse to do what they have always done in the event of emergencies of all kinds: do their best to help protect the affected:public.

The ' realism doctrine" ernbodied in this rule goes that far and no further. It makes no assumptions as ,to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local gowerreents would follow the utility's plan), nor does it prejudge whether their responses would be sufficient to protect public health and safety adequately. Those issues are questions of fact to be resolved in Jndividual adjudicatory proceedings. At the present time, the Coemission l does not have a bqsis in its adjudicatory experience to judge either that a utility plan would be adequate in every case or that it we'uld be inadequate in every case. ,

The probles of how the NRC can decide the adequacy of emergency planning in the face of FEMA's declared reluctance to make judgments on emergency planning in cases of state and local non-participation does not

. appear insoluble. .Though FEMA has expressed its rel'uctance to maka -

judgments in such circumstances, because of the degree of conjecture that

.would in FEMA's view be called for, we do not interpret its puttion as e

. 21

, _ _ - . _ - - _ _m- _ , . --._-..,-_.,-.__,_m _.,__,,_,_,--,.,..m.-,-__-.__. ,__ - . - - _ . . . - - , - , , - - - . . _ , , . _ _ _ . , . - - - . - - . , . . . . - , , . . - - . .

j  : : : - - e .: 1 The Cocaission's rule, as modified 7nclarf d flet, would establish a process by which 2 utility plan can be evaluated aga%st the same standards that are used to evaluate a state or local plan (with allowances made both for those areas in which conpliance is infeasible because of governnental non-participation and for the compensatory measures proposed by the utility). It must be recognized that emergency planning rules are necessarily flexible. There is no uniform "passing grade' for emergency plans, whether they are prepared by a state, a locality, or a utility. Rather, there is a case-by-case evaluation of 3 whether the plan reets the standard of "adequate protective measures...in the event of an emergency." Likewise, the acceptability of a plan for one plant is not measured against plans for other nuclear plants.

The Coenission, in its 1986 LILC0 decision', stressed the need for flexibility in the evaluation of emergency plans. In that dectsfos, the Comission observed that it ' night look favorably" on' a utility plan 'if. there was reasonable assurance that it was capable of achieving dose reductions in the event of an accident that are generally comparable to what might be acceaglished with government cooperation." 24 NRC 22, 30. We do not read that decistort as requiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be acconglished either by the utility's plan or by a hypothetical plan that had full state and local participation: such findings are never a requirement in the evaluation of energency plans.

Rather, we read the Comission's LILC0 decision as consistent with a process by which any plan that is approved -- state, local, or utility --

would have to be adequate and implementable, and as such, all approved plans would be generally comparable in terms of the prctection afforded to the public. Tne rvle is designed to establish suck a process.

. 28

. - . - - - - - - - --+--_-,_-.n-..--.-,._---.---_,,..-_-.-,,e--,-r- - - -, - , m,, - m.-, ,m-,-v,.,,,,-----.,-w

Attur. m ;

M Federal Reglster / Vol. 52. No. 212 / Tuesday. Notesnber 3,19ey / Rules and Regulatio findtag tiet. at least for the first 1:0 I (a May NRC assr.ma that & state or days e,ge a major defloency in loca responn wiu be m accord with the rebutted by. for etample. a good fa'n ernerpacs planrung dc.es not uubty plant and a t.mely proffer of an adequats d autonerically raju a substantialhealth (b) May NRC assume ht the state or f e e sible atsie or local ra d2clogical or malwy neue" with regard to plant local res u e wdlbe a watef response plan which wodd in fact x operssca. By contrast, a major safety (c)If e NRC rde calla or reliance on rehed upon in an emergency ne deflamacy relating to emuteDcy FDdA. and FEMA asys that it can t p,n g, g condraame- for example, the judp emerpacy planning except tvhen hesitata to select any claun ht stam evadannhey of the amergency con there la state and local parteipation in and local omelais wiu tofun to acro cochas systeso-would warrent an exert:iu, how can the NRC ever afeguard the health and ufety of na unmedase shutdown. make a judgmut on mery pubbc in h avut of an actual h sun, deepte Wage Meaung emergency. In actual emerpacies. sra m.

that anw planning was {[ocal uth es do not artf te? I cat and federal ometala have "eessestaL" the f'a-da!oe in 1900 la thle rule, the thmission adheres invenably done hit utmost to pronce creemd a supdam structun in wMch g g

• realism doctnne." enunciated in the catisenry, as two hundred years af

• • • rporF Planning was tnated its 1986 decision in las Is/ cod t.igher's Amuican history amply demonstram acewebe Affanndy. ta tenna d N Co. (Shoreham Nudear Power Station. At the pruent time. & Comanene

• corescave actions to be taken when Unit 1). CU-46-13,24 NRC 22. wbich does not have a besia in its adjndm dae-et== an identified. from h holds that la an actt.al emerpncy. state experierza to judp eibt that a utAry engineered safety features ("hardware") and local governmental auhnbes wdl plan would be adequate in every case ce that womid be retied os la an emergency. act to protect thett cuzenry, and that it that it would be inadequate in every is appropriate for the NRC to take case. Implementation of this rule may Issue se Assuming that NRC should consdur a stility plan, what entena account of that self endent fact in ultimately provide that informanonu should apply? In particulait esaluating the adequacy of a unhty's b e sis.

emerpney plan.N NRCs realism N problem of how & NRC can (a) %= uni the utdity plan provide just dxtrine is grounded equarely in as ansda puosection as a state orlocal decide the adequacy of emergency common sense. As the Comreission plantting in the face of FD4A's decarec pir.n. er easy leu protection be atsted in IJLCO. even where state and adequerof local omeals "deny they ever would or reluctance to make judgments on emerpocy plantting in cases of state (b)I'.ees protection may be adequata, could cooperate with [a stuity] either before or evn during an accident." the and local non participation does ncs most PGC asill!!nd reasonable a seurance het under the utdity plan. NRC "simply cannet accept thes* appeu insoluble.hugh FD4A has a uses prtytective mearures can and upnned its reluctance 2 make statements at face vah>e." 24 NRC 22. 29 wdl aW Or le it eumcient for NRC fn. 9. It would be irrenocal for an one to judgments in such circumstances, to Bad has the totabty of the risk, aJpPon that in a nal ndiologs becaum of the degrw of coe)eceun hat includes mR relevant factore,indud!ng Nflency, state and local pubbe would in FD4A's view be ceUed for. =e do not interpret its position se cme ci tw twW of an amdent. anuru ofEctals would refuw to do what by rekul m apply us operen 4 h (Mt ear, a w prouction of have alweye done in the event of pu2c h ah ufetyf emergendes of all kada: do their best to evaluation of a utihty plan. For FDM 'o engsp in the evaluabon of a utthry pan Under the rule adopted la thja notice, a ctdssy plan, to pass muster. la required hE##

indud o

"'d 8' .

w uld nuessitste no retnet from its s ated view that it ta highly destrab's 'o to petmde seasonable assursace that a psotectin maarure can and adm b % e5cet" of state and han fu och nuchu pown Nant a wdl ankam to an argncy. W nde county omdals would ladude utshring "*"" N" " """

the utdity's plan as 'the best source for paniegeu'on m erpney recoganso.- as did Congress when it  !

enacted and rusacted the provisione of' emergency plannma aformation and E*^^#3'.I"Cl"dI"8'**'I#I Section los af b fGtC Authorization options." 24 NRC 22. yt. Das rule le av e nucan (N Comminion shans to it to 6 Ucenstits Board to judge what siew ) FT.MA e advica would Act of mas >--4 hat no utility plan le likely to be aMe as provide the same degree of form 6 "best efforts

• of state and local undoubtedly include idenuncation cr, pubue pran=refoo that would obtain omdals would taka. However. the areas m which judgments are rulemaking record strongly supports b nununty con;ntural. ud NRCs under ideal conditions. l.a. a stata ce proposition ht state and local og neu judgant on wbetbar a suby :

localphe udah Int state andlocal plan la adequate would la turn have as paz" - " _ but that it mof pvernments beBen ht a planned neverdmians be adequate.De rule reponu la preferable to an ed hoc one. tshe account of the uncertaintles atarte bema iba promise ht anh ts Derefor,it la only reuonable to included in FD4A's Judgment. Beycud a suppose ht in the event of a cenam point uncertainty as to can happen. and that at every pleet-redlological emergency, sta ta and loca] underlyms feets would plainly make a adequess muergency planntry measume omdals, tn the absence of a state or positne finding on reasonable are needed to protect the pubne la the local rediological e plan ae uranea"increaein event se -Met occaars. Whether in an issun, howevu.which gly dimcult.

fact a parecular utiBty plan wu! be approved by state and can be nne governments, wdl either look to the addnned in the case by-case found adequate would be a mattee for utdtty and its plan fcr guidance or wdl adjudicanone on indmdual fact specSc e dtodicsoon in ladividual beensing fouow some other plea that ex. lata nua situauona It should be noted that wtzle pm : " - - the presiding Ucenatas Board may the rule makes deat that ujumate Iseur sh heay NRC asauze that a prosume that atate and loca] dec:sicnal authority rmdes with NRC. it state orlocad government which nfuses governmental authonoes wdllook to the does enytaion a role for FD4A in the to cooperwee ta emerpacy planning will utdity for guidanca and genereUy follow evsjuauon of utihty plana, aJthough enn rosysed to b best ofits abibty in lia plan in an actual emergency.. secuen toe of the NRC Authortsaboe e n actemi emnerpacy? If soc however, thje presumption may be Act of 1seo did not spectfy any role ter

42084 Fedoes) Register ' Vol 52. .N *12 / Tuesday. Nosember 3.196-R les and Regulat:ons which a utibty plan would be indeed by utihty's plan or by a hypothetical plan state and local withdrawel from g that had fuj! state and local . '.' .' I C' Whty plan which participation in emergency plasmans 6ose cntena would presumabby be of participation: such findirgs are neser a requirement in the evalue tion of $c

, u.

'["'bl nd assurance that th' assistance to decietonmakers la emergency plana. The final rule makes c nc..rred by opera]n M tN fid')

4termtamg. under 10 CFR SOMge)(2J(h). clear that every emergency plan is to be ed~

whether remedial action should he evaluated for adequacy on its own

'.9det the Commission s 1960 rul. *

4 ken. and i.f so. wha t hand. where the g

aiory prousion that monts, without reference to the specific deficiencies m emergency plaansas dose reductions which might be i. menented the second of the two 'mn mmam uncorrected after 120 de7s accomplished under the plan or to the uf bcon 109 was general and

!asue sik Does the Comatssesn'a rule capabthties of any other plan. It further i.ncec?.c. ne reles ant regulaign 30 mien that the NRC does not ham to find rnakes clear that a findmg of adequacy Cn sc 4'tc). allowed a nuci,,, pow,,

th:t a uttlf ry plan would offee prvectaon fur any plan is to be considered p; art to be hcensed to operate, equivalent to what a plan with feG easte generally comparable to a finding of r.otmthstanding its failure to corrpts and local participation would provide? abouaev for any other plan. wits -he plannes standard of to Cat As stated previously, under the rule 50 Cbt on a showing that "deficienu.. 3

~ The rule change is desu;ned to m tre ;ians are not sigmficant for the edopted in thta notice, a utthry plan, to establish procedures and cntena peas muster, is required to provide plart .s question. that adequate intenm reasonable assursace that adeqaste govemmg the case.by.csse adiudicatory cotroemsating measures have been or evaluation, at the opereting beanse wd; se tak en promptly, or that there are protective measures can and w1]l be review stage. of the adequacy of cthe cmpellms rea sons to permit plant taken in erneegency. De rule e nergency plannmg in situations m recognizee-as did Congress when it ope.atsaet" without definmg those terms enacted and re-enacted the provisions of decime which state and/or local authonties for :er The Commission currently to perticipate further m Lebrees that the plannmg standards of Section toe of the NRC Authonuaon Act of 1980--that no utility plan e Itkely emergency planning. It is not intended to u Cnt 50 tilb), which are used to assure the hcensing of any particular to be able to provide the same dette of plant or plants. De rule is miended to esawa:e a state or local plan. also rublic protection that would obtam prwde an appropnate framework to und:r ideal conditions, i.e. a state or remedy the omission of specific es awe a utihty plan. Therefore. ihe Iveal plan with full state and local pocedures for the esalvation of a utahty rew t?e provides for de first tirae N plan frorn the NRC s existing rules, whe, a stahty plan is submitted. m i p irticipation, but that it may edopted in 1980 in proudies for the revertheless be adequate. s.tumca of state and/or local non.

The Commission's ruh. as modied esaluatten of a utihty plan. howeser, the partcpat)on m ernergency plann ce .

rate represents no departure from the will te es aluated for edequacy a;. -u a.id clenfied. would estabbsh a peacess a pproach envisioned m 19eo by the the same standards used to evah;a e a t y which a utility plan can be esatuated Langress and by the Commission,la e :amst the same standards that are s'a'e it 'ecal plan How es er. due 1980. the supplementary mformation to c -ed to evaluate a state or local p'an a.le wt-ce will be made both for the SRCs final rule stated that the ra!e was r ve :4.mcapation of the state and/or f.uth allowances made both for those onsistent with the approach taken by a *eas in which comphance is mfeasible  !"c+ #ctemmental authent:es and for Congress m Section 109 of the NRC l'e .:mornsatory ineasures proposed t1ccuse olgtyverntnental non-g irticipation and for the compensatory Aethontation Act of 1980lahirA in a Ly me r.Lt) in reachirg a r:reptomise between House and Senate Leir- tiration wheiber there is cratures peoposed by the utthtg la ursions. prouded for the NRC to r~4st be recognized that emergency " eas.r We assurance that adeciuo e.aluate a utihty's emergency plan in grcte .se t co.res" can and wi;l M r'annmg rules are necessanly fleiuble. situations where a state or local plan ia k et Other than "adequacy." there is no =as esiher nonexistent or madequetel. TS i mch eflected ;n th r.'"

tmfstm "passang grade" for emertmc7 though the rule itself included no p' ens. whether they are prepared t=y a ap.J.s * .* J cMf.es the tuer e isphcit provisions gosernma the NRC s g rc. .v. i e Ct mtn ss.en s dee o. -

s ate, a locahry, or a utihty. Rather. oaluation of a utihty plan m such there is a case-by. case evaluation of ~i L t. * ." ! ! .4t P; Cs . !S Hre' . -

circumstances. it should be emphored %ds.: Swer 5' mon. t.%t 11 Cl1 w hsther the plan meets the standard of "adtquate protective messures. . . m that the rule is not miended to dimm.s's t J 04 '.".C :::tW.i The ru'e pubhc protection from the les els the event of an emergency."lAewme. acomr a s .he ' re.!.sm dic:n .e. .i previously estabbshed by the Corgress fsrth a dat decision, which holds that the acceptabthey of a plas foe see plast ce the Cosmalseloe's rules. since the m an actr.a! emergency,itate and loc !

le not measured agannat plans he e&se Commisalon's rules and the Congress nucl:ar plants. We Commisaloa. le its gourmeetal autScrities will act 'o

> ave since 1980 prouded for a two. tier t coter N p.bbc. and that it is 1986 ULCO decision, stressed the seed approach to emergency planning The .ppra;r.4'e therefore for the SRC. in foe flexibilty in the evaluation of rule takes as its startmg point the cmergency plaas, to thet decis6on he esalunr4 the adequacy of a utiht) :

Congres:ional pohey deciaion ref'eeted cmerymcy plan. to tike inio aecowni ne Commiselon observed that it "might look favorebfy" en a utibty plaa "W in section 10e of the NRC Authontation probau vsponse of state and lucal Act of 1900. That statute adopted a rwo. autho r:es to te de'ermmed on a ce there was teamanable assuranca thet it tier approach to emergency planntro by<ain tas.t.

was capable of achievirts does The preferred approach ws: for reductione la the event of an ecodest The".ecsion slso included langu e eperating licenses to be issued upon a a hic.' :Gd te eterpreed as that cre generaDy com reble to what finding that there is a "State or local might be accompush with government enusanu.s that the NRC must estea'.-

radiological emettency response plan the radoiagical dose reductions which a cooperation." 24 NRC 22. 30 We do not * *

• which comphes with the read that deciosoo as requjring a finduts utiht) pan wes!d schieve. compare of the precies dose reductions that Commission's standards fur such plans /' thers wth t.be tahotetical dose but failing that,it also permitted  ; Muctans which would be achiesed if would be mphabed either by the hcensms on a showing that there is a there w re a state orlocal plan *ith full

Tederal Registes i Vol 't No 212 / Tuesday. Nosember 3.1987 / Rules ud Regu i 4206!

state and local participsbon m emergency plarmmg and permit The rule thus estabbshes the framework by which the adeqvac) of rnaior Feders' act on s gmficanti hcensing ordy sf the dose reductions are

' generauy comparable." Such an emergency plannma in cases of sta'e affecnns the tuahty of the human) a nd 'or local non.parucipahon. can be enutors.ent aM therefom an interpretshon wedd be contrary to NRC es ab.ated on a case by. case buis menuronmenu: impaci etatement is not pracute. under which emergenc) plans are es aluated for adequacy without opesatmg beense proceedings The rule required The Cornmission has preparea does not presuppose. not does it dictate. in support of $s ftndtng. en reference to numencal dose reductions w hach might be accomphshed. and what the oucome of that case by case enuronmenta. assessment which is without companns them to other esalwahon will be. As with other issuesavailable for aspection and coppng for emergency plans. real or hypothetical adiadacated in NRC proceedings. the a fee at the NRC Pubhc Document outcome of case by case evaluations of Room.17U H 5creet NW, Wash:gnton.

The final rule rnakes clear that es ery DC-emergency plan a to be evaluated for the adequacy of emergency planning adequacy on t's own ments without uses a utthty's plan will be subject to Regulatory Amelyas muhple layers of admmistratae reuew reference to the specific dose reductions mim the Commission and to judicial which might be accornpl.shed under the The Commation has prepared a recew m the courts regalatory atta}ysts for this replanon plan or to the capab.htes of any other J This analysis hrdet exammes the ces -

plan It further trokes clear that a Bacilit Anal > si and benefits of the pecposed achon .t 3 finding of adequacy for any p!an a to be the alternataes coesidered by the considered genera':y ceniparab!c to a T%s amendment does not impose an) rew requ:rements on production of Commission The analysis is asailable f M. g of adequa() for ea) other pl.n wy z.t:en faciht:es i' on:) proudes an for inspechon and copytag for a fee a' Tne LergIs'ondligN.. ;Cu decmon matm tr.ethod to meet the the NRC Pubbc Docurnent Room.1T H c.Md the obsenanon tr.t m an Cor mssion s emergency p'armr's Street NW.. W ash.ngton. DC-

.. ment. the 'best effort" of state erd "C--J'ons The amndmnt theefon a For the ream e out m the roi.r.9 off clah woJd :nch.de uhhzmg n t a backf.t eder 10 CFR 501W and a prea r.bfe. and ander the a.then d ".

• e .

u' lit) s pun as ' tre best souce for becW ana!) sis is col rewted Atom 4c Energ) Act of 1954 u ames e cmepnc) plannits mform.shon and the Energy Recrgan. nation Act of 19 4 ophons " 24 NRC ::. 31. This rule les ves Regi.tlatory Me Ubility Certification as amended, a:d 5 U.S C 553. the i to the Ucensma Board to pdge w hat in accordance with the Regdaten Conuniuion n adophng th fohw n i FietMI) Act of 1980 5 U S C %5[bt emndmnu to to UR Pan M s wou 4 ta e by t at dgme * **"'C' "'" I'u th a t this rde would be made in accordance with M h* " a s8s'DI'iCanteCon fC P ART 50--000sEST)C UCENSING OF certain 8videhnes set forth m the ru,, PRODUCTION AND UTlu2AT10N impact upon a substantial namber of.

sma!. enhties The preposed rJe arpi es F ACIUTIES r.1 rna ing to te g : orts *e onh 4 nehar pown %a en 1 proposition that state and local '" av% catahon for Pan W pos ernments behese that a p?anned

"" " N ** 4 * " ' * * " * " 8' dor m. ant m the:r service areas 1 ese response is preferable to an ad het ore CWH aN not 'smaU eW u d s" %W sees m2 24 ut u is: -

Therefore it is only reescnable to foch m the Regulatory Fies.biht) Act m 6454 m r 144 m H.4 m e u Si,cpose that m the enent of a and do not meet the small busmess site .i w e d d we :>e m 5iat i:u ai r dio'eg cal emergency. state and local standa ds set forth in Small Bamess a ended (4: U S C M23 asa ::ct :: :

cc'.c is. m the absence of a state or Ad ustrauen regWat: ens n 13 CFR m CM C)$ D:' wt Oct 00: % 4a lo,:.1 radioleg cal ernergene) plan p ,., '

s's im usa um na maded !a: U 5 t a; prosed by state and local  % e 24' 2441 Weu amersise now Paperwork Reduction Act Section 50 r atic .n4.ed oder P'.b L b-ges ernmenu. will either look to the te m to 9:$tes :sst (4:USC un unht) and tu ;!an for gwdance or will This fmal rule amends informaten fcMow some otherplan that rusts Thus ce}tec. son requirernents that are subiect 5' # ' " E d ' '* ** " # # * ".'

the presidmg l.acens.ng Bcard may presuine that state and local to the P perwork Red ction Act of 1980 H4 US C 3501 et seq l Thoe

'f'.".,[M'c \' *

,,,,id underirc tu u su' W ..

gos ermental authonties willlook to the requiretnents were appros ed bs tr e a e q u t4:U S C :.'so seu. .ri se ' -

whhty for guidance and generau ogg,c, or y,f.agement and Bwdgei 5o te: a% wee eder set too 64 $> - -

14: t S C Oxn its plan in an actual emergency;) follo*

approsalNo 315N1011 For 178' PurPo*** *f *** C3 64 S'# " --

however, thta persemption may be Ust of Subjocts le le CTR Part Se amendedit: UAC 2:*3L eeca 30 tui.i ti-rebutted by. for example, a good foth andiei w a4 m as so es M 54 aad W +

and timely proffer or an adequate and Anttrat Clanified informanon Fire a e 'thed oder ses is:b sa Sai was ..

fe.sible state ce localradiological protect 2 ort incurporanon by reference response plan which would m fact be Intergos ernmental relanon Nucle.r C ',8),*2 [ ,, D Q',*, $ g((

rebed upon in an emergency. The power plants and reactors. Penalty. u su m u aw to USC ::co presidmg Uceraing Board should not Ra6 anon protection. Reactor sitmr ed me 50 5591 se E M *o 50 1 v -

y 3 ns so a a., awd uneer en ir.1, %

hesitate to reject any claim that state entena. Reportmg and RecordLeepn v. W n amended (c U SC C01w reqvre nenu and loc.) officials will refan to act t ufeguard the heahh and safety of the p,4bl*c in the esent of an actua, Enuroamental Assenme.! anJ Rn6ng I SC I'

• d**I of No Segruficant Emironn,entalImpact  : In 10 CFR Par. Sa paragrae f w emergency In actualemersenmes state local. and federal off.cials Pas e The Commission has determ ned of i 50, 4? is, reused to read as foUcw s ms ariably done their utmost to protect eder the Nabonal E.nuronmenial Pohcs , ,

the citite'nry. as two hu9 dred y ears of Act of 1969 as amended and the (cIll) Failure to mee* the appbc.b:e American histor) arnpl) demor strates Cummission s regulanons in Subpart A siendards set forth m paragraph (b) of of to CDt Part St. that this rWe a not a th.s techen may result in the 1

A.

l l

L

g pedese{ _ / Vet 4 po. 212 / Tweeder. Nove .:bar 3, my g ,.

Coauniesmas dechalag b iemmree rubetantiaDy the resellef aan, pajesdpaasma of eaeta and/or local becaj g I,uye , y opereu.ag hcanas bowever, the , _ GD Freernmente, d chey be prees.ned that se applicant e64.. g , ganhan damoes aswd hehome at,,- " as _ y - d&e the avant af an ecseal raeshag> cal r%--% that deM-=='a= kr1hs emergency staa and local oasals ^^"**

plane an not sisadcast 6erthe plaat as woJd peneraDy loDow the mery plae. P* **"seevee =m considered.

questaca thaJ -984 irsettes However, tha presuesptice may be *'C***'4 I***4 the estetr4 rette companaanns actions hace been er wG rebuted by for eraspla, a good leah N N P eM cone d the*e be tahan promptly, at thed these are and tis aly prdier d sa adequete and """*'*"**""'*d*N<*

othat campelkng renecos te perinit plant feaable state sodfor local rdological * ** F *d"d "*8"*" l operations. Where an appbcaat for sa enarpency plan the would in fact be C****e"*c88 1 opereting ik= nee esserts that its rebed upos la a redblagteal emergencyg SBC  !

N ****d**** ** s'obably not is9ect b of (b)

Appenda EH Amended) of this necesas resuhe w eubet from the dacianas of state L In to CDt Part m Appendix F. a new paragraph 6 is added to sectboe bece d,,emped ta the a% wry u e to . E

• • • • • h g

cnd/or porernments not to IVJ to read as follows: ,sas se enhey p&ame u pee & tanna parddpass hether la ammasacy & N part opebee d state and local *c4 '"*" **dar to Olt planruas, an operWing Bosnas stay be pm, ,, re , e, e.,,,,,,c7 cu,a,e se 5="P'a'*tt sac 7t nue. =bJe there caJd be )

issued if the appucant demorstrates to requrrd m the scent he es oppbcam has emiensr,e husetson and review resaniing r

the *^mmiaawm's saf* afarfkm that ideenSed those powermansa se tdmeseg to whees tbs rWe's amerta are met. thu wodd l I

(l) The oppbcant's inabdhry to cong4 parudpete fur %r e assroency plaansa tiety be atmaar to the timew and titisetson with the requiremente of paragreph (D) *cunces. purosant to to Olt 24?1(Xtk h weder const ps csee.

of thle section te wboEy or sabotantia5y 'uch c8*** *a '2erou ahan be bold with the og, e,,,,,, g, appecant or beenm and auch p.

b "edt of b 8"T*""P" *" d ~' ~

anso.e w ei et to perscopew ta se Ne impecs on other assacy sesources stab and/or local s= -

emwiency piammas pear ebo W maalt with the posse n.e,pexa ha M De oppueme b made e Detad at Weehlagen. DC, this :sth day d FDM we need to devote reauurces is sustained, good faith e5 art to seew' omkr. t u7. deeds, etteru Isr irvhw d why @

and rotsen the partidpetka of the =ad!= = re*w h plane on e cue-by case pertinent etete and/orleen)

For k Medui %% hs.am. bases menanal ad.aaw inchading the 8*"8 I OA 8*cnwy of c.*e coeus2ulon k'd8F I d @ d ttiunassancy [Miertel essa m fcDewing rercalory hapena on she '=bary us er scele en l plaa. anaWa and envtrw.mtal penament wG br=-. Ihre la me way is preese. en l (111)ne appucant's emergency pian " 'opear ta the cede of redeest advaase d these esenal f m whe%, '

prow M ausmaca thH *F'i*6C'wl ery petalar nai6ty pian wG senefy the rsla bbc health and safety is 1st *** *d"7sho=Ms % beena:

tesdaar7 AmaW-a,ahunos d b

$dangerms by operetion of

,,s u o m ets t n g. e the u fa.chry <, d oe.e m , , na n., i.r - - <*-=~-=

• • S P'"* F5==88 8 the operooms Pus 8 l' (**P h'n'* *** ta formaletad-appneast mese dennonatrew that, u ""d/*'

out1.ined below, adagnale protectise **8* M P bbe h t c $ o rue bei edew e ==y ,i m.aa.e. cas and -in de takam ta the one - -% en pam ==wr. m re,ared w preende eveat cl en omasgency, A sehty plan will be orda. ped aptasi the pens Suum *at of the ho6/es r---* esarance h1 e hente in teen, Coc4rees enseed provuxne ,co*ct *****r* u* 'M =4 he tad ae a ptmanmg standarde opphssMe ta a saets ** **'7eecy. N @ recogn me dad or local plan, as usted ta paragraph (b) dethr4 with emaganry psansaag for A cf th6e necesa, ertIb dos ese rence w plante to the hllC Avibornacco Ass Corfue =+*n it enacted sad renaced iAs

'gE*l F**' 18'" S*C8'"

• d **' ^ "** # 8*** *

• d * *

• C made boe fou-- 6e E to tww a verye h h taa Acs d I M tw W no A Thoes elements for width state embry plas 41d aly to be able to provsde a e -P-==~e h- emers.eecy er i- i s plas , ,- es asseethc.as e . e. La.wuch e a,rwn oute,, o a..e de d, compuance imieseMe and or =m i-t-_ m m nc petb ned prot,co that .ouJd obtaan under ideal (B) The etaity's mesewee designed no resdausse leer shu row h< were m.m. te e state or Wu inst tWI m ser any ArAr'='d== dweened to to c== wi wve as ou, e,d iac.: perocapeece. ex.h a ytes na y 8' . _ '-- *y meadened approach, but Wag has en and/W belama meewtelees be edgeon. N rde senew M they ed and tedads n.nar eenoss d the premiae ibei occideato can beppet med part6dpetaan, In raaktag les dotarsdamese esibe adasyssey o

.fee.eem staty pien, the >mC,,m,,e 68[F we j , 2 un gc N *t**a88 ef *wA e srettake ebout as a he se e,cy ptut adequie ecnerywicy p'.ueng canwu an es.d d a preesca se e s, r n. . .e wm, e.gg e %. .

,~ e.ee - a-.,,

=~d. ao e p.wamary ,a we m .e _ ,.e o,.a go,,-oem ,2,ed, - , , d ~ e,

! officiels wtB exstries thdr best effpese to cJanty bodi es tehCe chtgenous ta comeder be fwd adewate wakd be e rerter 'er

! protect the benah and salsty of the a unseer plaa et she op n.,i r enee in mir**c*oo* = *ddaal tamaae l pubtle. % NRC wtB determine the cues of state arid /or local nener-e= Pr" "'N'-

l edequaey of thet expected naa. in * 'm*rtroc7 P I*^rur4

• ad * *151'P18 arpaa en c6r, Aegwreer eombinatson wtth the u

--ee--.

• "ja"

" ="*

• Pa - "W S' m y,ed e,,,ey , ate ...a set r- c , -en.

c** be one, d'.mo 4. enes **mroe,,co , Cas *s as m % g % ,g me guidancaJ.n etrc==am cnaddressing de= e#aaar's thetr=Mey e.eio a.s. . u ,.acy % . , u se- n.wwut no.*.4mi d ed we) Amsbaus2'en Ars and e rum. tw ="ec1 =sen =c u tw= d

• N=*d io m-rigphud64e peregre (hhdthe "'T ascolos "==*leholly w er rare, hee nesg. -4 ei ati a emarpreq = =--'=aats I

I -- _ _ - _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ ._

e. t a s.. a n : 4

- 'i *n  ; Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington. D C 20472 April 28,1987

. Mr. Samel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Coments on Proposed Rule on Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where Statt and Local Governments Decline to Participate in Offsite Emergency Plar.nin;

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter provides the cceents of the r ederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmission (NRC) proposed rul6, "Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and Local Governments Cecline to Participate in Off site Emergency Planning." This proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 6,1987 (52 FR 6980).

The NRC has proposed a Change in its regulatlons whlCh would permit the licensing of nuclear power plants where State and local governments decline t:

participate in the design, esercise, or laclementation of offsite emergency preparedeels planning. Under those circumstances, the proposed rule change would permit the applicant to be licensed soon showing that (1) its inability to comply with the normal emergency planning requirements could be remedied or adequately roepensated for by reasonable cooperation by the State and local governments, (2) the applicant has made a good faith and sustained effort to ottain this cooperation. (3) the plans developed by the applicant include all effective measurei to compensate for the lack of cooperation which are reasonable and feasible under the circumstances and which take into account a possible State or local response to an actual emergency, and (4) the applicant has provided copies of the plan to all governments which would have otherwise have participated and has assured them that it stands ready to cooperate with thee.

FEMA notes, as a. first premise to its comments, that, under the Atoalc Energy Act, legal responsibility for the licensig of nuclear power plants is vested e=clusively In the NRC. In setting standards for licensure, the Ccelssion defines the threat to be prepared against, and it is the Comission which determines what level of preparation is necessary to meet the defined threat.

Prior to the incident at the Three Mlle Island Nuclear Power Plant in March 1979, there was no licensing requirement for offsite emergency planning and preparedness. Following that incident and the report of the Kemeny Comission in the same year, the NRC strengthened its regulatory requirement that off site l

l . ,

(_ __ _ ___ __. . - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --

,j Attaeres.. 3 remedy the omission from the NRC's 1980 emergency planning rules of provisions dealing explicitly

o with such situations.

on February 24, 1987, the Commission held a public meeting at which it was briefed on the proposed rule and heard from a large number of witnesses, including state and local officials and Members of Congress. The Commission subsequently determined, by a 4-1 vote, that it would benefit from hearing the views of the public on the proposed rule and the issues involved. Refore approving the rule for publication, the Commission modified the l Supplementary Information to include an emphatic statement that '[alny consideration of possible changes in the Commission's emergency planning requirements must recognize one: central and salient fact: that such a change would not alter the Commission's paramount obligation to assure public health and safety. For each license application, the Commission would remain obligated to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected. If the Commission, for whatever reason, cannot find that the statutory standard has been mot, then the license cannot be is s ue d . '

Ehe proposed rule was published for comment on March 6, 1987. 52 ted. Reg. 6980. The sixty-day comment petiod was subsequently extended by thirty days, finally expiring on June 4,1987.

! The proposed rule was the subject of hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and

, Development of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 22, 1987, and before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the

. Rosse Committee on Interior and Insular Aff airs on April 29,1987. The proposed rule was the subject of questions from the House subcommittee on Energy and Environment both before and af ter the April 29 hearing. In addition, the Subcommittee on Energy

and Water Development of the House Appropriations 1

Conaittee asked questions about the proposed rule in advance of its March 16, 1987 hearing on the

NRC's budget request. On each occasion, the i

4

-cc,. -- c. m-. , . -.,r------...,-.,.w-ww--m w. e--,w-m.-mi-----i.r-w-,w,,.,-.--------, ww

Mr. Sa%el J. Chilt, iage 2 emergency response planning and preparedness be instituted and be demoas: rates adequate to protect the public before new licenses would :e isst.ed. It also adopted the Kemeny Ccammission recccreendation that FEMA should take the lead responsibility for of f site emergency plan evaluation.

Additional reevirerents were estabilshed to insure such planning and preparation would be accompit shed at previously licensed plants.

As a second premise, FEMA acknowledges that decisions by the NRC on obtaining and maintaining operating licenses are based in part on a composite rewlev of of fsite emergency capabilities and those provided by the utility within the plant.

The NRC has the authority to determine the relative importance of off site emergency preparedness in the licensinq decision. This statement of FEMA's views on the proposed rule is made on the assumption that adequate offsite emergency planning and preparedness are still considered essential to obtaining and maintaining an operating license.

The proposed rule change is evidently intended to address the preemption issue which is at the center of the litigation over licensing of the Shoreha,t Nuclear Power Plant and the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. The particular issue is whether State and local governments should be able to do indirectly, by decinning to participate in of f site etergency planning, what they may not do directly, that is, effectively veto the regulatory decisions of the NRC as to the siting and licensing of nuclear power plants. FEMA Delieves that this issue of the Indirect veto of NRC decisions by state and local governments involves matters of significant public policy which may ultimdtely have to be resolved by the Congress.

While FEMA has no view as to the validity of any position the NRC may take on the preemption issue per se, the agency does note that the effect of the proposed change is to require a showing that the applicant has taken all reatorable and feasible steps to develop an offsite emer;eacy plan and response c4040111ty rather than a showing that the emergency response plans offer reasonable assurance that adequate measures to protect the public can be taken in the event of an emergency.

On its face, the proposed rule incorporates a fundamental enange in the way that off site emergency planning would be evaluated by FEMA if the NRC requests findings and determinations 45 to whether offsite emergency plans are acequate

' and can be laclemented. It would eliminate the need for full-participation exercises (those testing the capacity of State and local governments) both before and af ter licensing. Even if esercises are conducted, their value is seriously dialnished without the participation of State and local governments. Full-participation esercises serve several important purposes.

i They are not only tools for evaluating written plans. they are also a means for their refinement and a training vehicle for the emergency personnel who will be' called on to respond to an actual eergency. FEMA is of the view that State and local participation, as in the present approach, offers all concerned with offsite emergency planning and preparedness a wealth of experience and sensitivity to local Circumstances, the Icss of which could i

i l

' i

we. Samuel J. Cntik. Nge 3.

have serious adverse consequences for such activities at esisting anc plants. <,t.,

In February,1986, and FEM participated in an esercise that did not incluee Sate local governments, FEM employees. the roles of key government of ficials were playes :, t From this experience, FEM concludes that the practice of I simulating governmental participation has several important consequences.

First, the real-time interaction between officials and other emergency responders is not realistically tested. That compromises the Quality of t?e findings which FEM is able to make about the preparedness of those other responders.

Secondly, the prepareaness of tne State and local governments is not demonstrated in any meaningful sense. As a result, the conclusions that FEM would be called on to make about the probatle response of State and lccal governments would be based largely on conjecture. FEM is very reluctant to certify that adequate protective measures can be taken where any finding eculd be based on such I degree of conjectare.

The refinecent of emergency plans which is the natural outccet of an eierc se could also be ccepromised.

The observations on which such refinements wouis be made are less valid without the participation of State and local governments. Furthermore, these goverreents may not be committed to changes in their usual ways of operating in emergencies. They are certainly not likely to change their routines during an actual emergency, even if they are convinced of the wisdom of the changes. The lack of training which would, in all probability, follow from holding esercises without State and local government participation would also increase the risk to the population of t9e affected emergency planning zones.

The e:Isting regulatory scheme anticipates that there vill be detailed.

$ocumented, provisions in advance of an emergency for the plume esposure energency planning zone (10 miles out from the plant) and that ad h.o_c _ .

responses will be underta(en as necessary to supplement preplanned actions.

This proposed rule would, in effect, sanction entensive across-the-board as hoc responses. The proposed rule incorporates as a basic premise the -

Assumption that State and local governments are likely to respond in an act a' emergency because state law requires thee to do so and also because that =o,,13 presumably be the natural reaction of government officials in time of eeergency. Even if the premise is valid, the ad hoc nature of their response could have unfortunate consequences. It does not assure that the full range of neCelsary actions will be taken. It does make it highly likely that any response will be uncoordinated. To the entent that utility ccepany officials step into the roles of government of ficials, such as by recoceending specific protective actions, there is a high probability that the public and emergency responders will receive conflicting instructions. FEM also notes that, while the legal issue of the authority of utility officials to perform critical teetyPty functions in place of State and local officials has been considerec by the courts of New York State, in has not been resolved throughout the Country.

S

• t f

Mr. Sarvel J ~.

• t i t . Page 4 The concerns demonstrated AM 1:f ntified above relate to communit tet en s ch nave ce:lare p unwillingness to take part in emerge cj retoonge olann3r; FEMA is equally concerned that the incentive for coote ative State anc icesi governments to continue their efforts could be diminisned thould the prcccsec rule be adopte:.

In addition to the major concerns expressed above, FEMA questions several assumptions ma:e explicitly or implicitly in the proposal:

1. The a allef expressed by the NRC that State and local governments which have not been involved in ettergency blanning would nonetheless plan is open to question. respond to an actual emergency and follow a comore FEMA has no data that would indicate snat State and local government reactions might be in such circumstances.

2.

The of assumotion litigation that the proposed rule change will lessen the burden is cebatable.

havirg to do with emergency planning will be no intente lettThethan phase of the lic before and can be espected to be more comples cecause of the uncertainties Introduced into the issue of the adequacy of of f tt te emergency preparedness.

It follows that the potential litigation costi related to the proposed rule would orceacly te no less than under current regulations.

3.

The clate that the requirement for planning placed on State and local governments by it tie !!! of the Sucerfund Amendments anc Reaut crt24 tion act of 1986 would orcept more State cocceration regar:Ing nuclear power plant emergency planning 11 not tupported by facts.

The State and local organ 12ational structures for carrying out t*e provisions of Title !!! are mandated by law and, in most cases, entsting structures will be used. It is not the presence of emergency management structures such as provided under Title ill

' that is at istue. Rather, the Question is ehetner those organt2ati,ent preparedness. are willing to participate in nuclear power emergency The adoption of proposed rule would not, in an of itstlf resolve FEMA's difficulties in providing findings regarding reasonable assurance for off ttte preparedness if state and local governments do not participate. The current Memorandue of Understanding between FEMA and the NRC charges FEMA with evaluating offstte emergency response plans against the criteria set out in the jointly developed guidance document. NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP I, Rev.1. This guidance document assumes that there will be extensive involvement of State and local governments In the development and implementation of these plant.

Without,such involvement, many of the evaluation criteria cannot be satisfied. In addition, as noted above, the absence of state and local involvement frustrates or, at the very least, complicates the process of exercising the plans. If FEMA is not able to tring its evaluation process to a conclusion, it cannot of fer the NRC the finding 1 it requests. As the NRC e r t t

J

,Mr. Samuel J. Chilt, Page 5.

Staff seems to have recognized in its Dresentation of the OroDosed ry'e tag Comission, new guldsace and standards for evaluation of sucn an emer;e :,:  :

preparedness structure would have to be developed. As staff has rec:;- :e:,

this task is not insignificant and when considered in the light of re:. site litigation bears major resource ramifications for this agencj.

The NRC statements on this rule and our coments above make it clear t a: we share a cosenon view that of f-site emergency preparedness is best serves ey active state and local government participation. Should the NRC fine tae proposed rule appropriate and necessary, we would expect to continue our productive relationship. We would also hope that the NRC would carefully monitor the participation of state and local governments in order to acj st requirements that might discourage such participation.

We appreciate the opportunity to coment on this proposed rule.

Slncere1y,

/2-<Ja &

Da<e McLoughlin L

Oe;uty Assoc! ate Director State and Local Programs and Support l

l P f

(

$ 3 s.o ,

t.

l

~

C O R .:. .I C T I 0 13 N O ,'t ICh I

1 1

TO ALL HOLDERS OF SECY-87 COris:DERATION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE CHANGES TO DEAL W TH LACK OF GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ,

IN OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING The attached page should be substituted for page 3 (signature page) of the cover memorandum to the Commissioners. Item 3 of the recommendations har been changed to reflect formation of a new House Subcommittee on Energy and ?cwcr utider the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

THE SECRETARIAT

Attachment:

A3 stated Q1Ls noi . , . ,

IT 'Yf $ Yf p 7~//

e

,/

• Recontendations: 1. Approve publicatic cf the notice of proposed

/I ,p '/ J rulemaking. ,

'l I

2. Consider this pape at an open Comission meeting.

3. Note:

a. The Subcomit ee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee, the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation o' the Senate Comittee on the Environinent ard Public Works, the Subcomittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Federal Services of' the Senate Comittee on Government Affa'rs, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Comerce Comittee will be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure B as soon as this par,er is scheduled for a Comission meetirg. They will also be infonned if the Conmission agrees to publish the proposal in the Federal Register.

b. If approved, this notice of proposed rulemaking would be published in the Federal Register allowing (0 days for public comment.

c. A draf t public announcement similar to Enclosure C will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs.

d. In light of Comissioner Asselstine's offer of the proposed rule to Congress, we recomend that this paper be provided to Congress and also l

placed in the POR.

1 I \,n

, l ,

6 f i h . fr /

2//g7 General Counsel f & - -

ctor Stallo, r.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

~

A. FR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B. Regulatory Analysis C. Environmental Assessinent

(.

[7590-01)

MCLEAP. RETLTA7mY CDf!!SSICt!

10 CFR Part 50 Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants %ere State and/or local Goverrrnents Decline to Cooperate in Of fat te Bnergency Planning ATCY: Nuclear Regulato'ry Ccanission.

ACTICN: Proposed rule.

SU4%RY: 'Ihe Nuclear Regulatory Ccumission is considering whether to anend its rules regarding offsite anergency planning at nuclear power plant sites.

'Ihe amendnent being considered would, in limited circumtances, allow the issuance of a ful1-power operating 1icense even if the uti1ity cannot meet al1 of hTC's current energency planning requironents when, contrary to the Ccrmission's expectations when its anergency planning rules were issued, there is a lack of cooperation by State and/or local goverrments in the developnent or inplanentation of offsite anergency planc. The Ccamissicm believes that adequate assurance of public health and safety can be achieved with this approach.

. U,vr Blpet ,

DATES: Ccnment period egires (60 days from-the 4 ate-of-issuance-of. the-proposed ruit). Cccments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but assurance of consideration can be given only for ccoments filed on or before this date.

AIIRESSES: Surmit written ecnments to: Secretary, U.S. Puelear Regulatory Ccumission, Washingtco, D.C. 20555, ATni: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver ccmnents to: Rocm 1121,1717 H Street, l@U; Washington, I%, '

between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. wekdays. Exanine ccmnents received at: PE r

Public Docunent Rocro,1717 H Street, Nf Wj, Washington, D.C. 7 g, 1is-1 lb f/z

i

[7500-01]

unless the applicant da onstrates that adequate offsite anergency planning is V

achievabl and all other aspects of foregoing criteria are satisfied. His rular.aking is intended only to address non-cooperation by responsible State or local governnents; it does not provide a raredy or excuse for other of fsite anergency planning problens.

The additienal flexibility provided by such a rule oculd obviously minimize the consequences fran the lack of goverrmental cooperation in the developnent or irrplementation of of fsite anergency plans. he more inportent and difficult question is diether or to what extent these non-safety consequences should be a matter of concern to the Ccnmission in setting pre-licensing anergency planning requiranents, ne Ccnmission believes that the 1980 rule ard the Ccmnission's u

explanation of the basis and purpose for the 1980 rule in the ge#' preamble (45 FR 55402, August 19, 1980) reflect inconsistent concepts as to the proper place of offsite anergency plar:ning and non-safety costs in the NRC safety licensing prcgran. On the one hand, the Ccmnission stated that the new requiranents, as well as prcper siting and engineered safety features, were needed to protect public health and safety. Taken in isolation, these statanents can be read as evidencing a Ccanission decision that anergency planning and preparedness as provided in those revised rules were to be treated as measures essential to safe operation of nuclear facilities and therefore to be icposed rigorously without regard to equity or cost.

. t 0 11 - [7590-01]

I /

planning.)Y The option vould be based on the consideration of what should be the appropriate underlying philosophy or approach to e:ergency planning as a prelicensing regulatory requirement -- a consideration which is prompted by the change in circumstances which have been experienced since the regulations were promulgated in 1980 - the phenomena not then expected of State and local

' governments refusing to cooperate in' emergency planning.

The practical effects of Commission adoption of option tvc - a rule change -- are difficult to estimte, but the Commission believes that the level of public protection associated with option two would not be significantly dif f erent from that provided by the current regulations. First, if a plant began operation under the circumstances permitted by the proposed regulation change, and all administrative and judicial remedies available to plant opponents had been exhausted, it seems reasonable to expect that the governments involved more likely than not would change their position and cooperate in planning. The governments or others may dispute vtether planning is adequate, but it would seem fairly indisputable that the adequacy of a plan with cooperation vill be enhanced relative to a utility sponsored plan without it. In these circumstances, the governments and the citizens they represent vould have auch to gain and nothing to lose from cooperation, hin the future nuclear plant designs are proposed which offer greater protection of the public health and safety than do current designs, then additional rulemaking may be appropriate which examines the need fer emergency planning in consideration of the reduced overall risk to the public. In this rulemaking, however, no assumptions are necessarily being made regarding possibly improved plant designs or operations sine.e 1980 when the new I emergency planning regulatior_s were issued.

I 1

1 - - -_, - _ . _ _ . - , , ,_. ._ -___ - . - . .. _ - ..- _-- -

. / (

14 - [7590-01)

Ca rlssion's errergency planning regulations. The amendnent therefore is not

, a beckfit under 10 CFR 50.100 and a backfit analysis is not required.

lM^ y ,DppM we,K Et i, a c G w Aer :hno o REGJIATORY FLEXIDILITY CERrlFICATIW In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Cannission certifies that this rule will not have a significant ecormic irrpact upon a substantial nunber of anall entities. The proposed rule applies only to nuclear power plant licmsees which are electric utility

- cccpanies daninant in their service areas. These licensees are not "strall entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and do not meet the anall business size standards set forth in Small Business Adninistration regulations in 13 CFR Part 121.

LIST OF SWJECIS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified infonnation, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergoverrrnental relations, !bclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and Recordkeeping requiranents.

( ,

[7590-01)

BVIFEN,ETAL ASSESS.WT Mr Fl!OllC CF ?D SIGIFICANT BVIPCN.1ENTA'. DPACT

'Ihe Ccmnission has determined under the National Ecritormental Policy Act of 1969, as arnended, and the Ccmnission's regulations in Sobpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action sigrd ficantly affecting the cuality of the hirnan envirorrnent and therefore an etvirormental inpact statenent is not required. The Ccomission has prepared, in support of this finding, an envirormental aseessnent which is available for inspection and copying, for a fee, at the NI'C Public Doctment Rocm,1717 E Street , Nhj ,

t,'ashington, D.C.

REGJIA10RY ANALYSIS The Ccrimission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this regulation.

This analysis further exanines the costs and benefits of the proposed action l and the alternatives considered by the Ccmnission. The analysis is available for inspection and copying, for a fee, at the NRC Public roctment Rocan,1717 l n B Street, N n , Washington, D.C.

j For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Atcznic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgmitation Act of 1934, bC as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Ccmnission is(consider rh5eSJ -

hould

~..

adopt the following amendaents to 10 CIR Part 50:

1 i

l l

\. -

--~~ -~~- ~~~ " " ' ~ ~

I i

(TMO-01)

PAPT 50 - IU.FSTIC LIG2' SING OF P.TD CT!W NO LTILIZATIGI FACILITIES -

1. The authority citation for Part 50 [Ed1 to read as follows:

/e4 /bS,  ;

p.q AUIICP.lTY: Secs.r103, 104,f 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 St a t . 93 5, '

955, 956 amended, sec. 234, 83 Sta .1244, as 937 amendedw94'8, (42 953, U.S.C.95{)h33, 2134 201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 223 2483M secs.

g 3 ,, ,y 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 4, 12 46hsaas amende<]) (42 . .C. 58 41, 5 , 5846), -untees o the rah = t Q Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851) . Sections 50.57(d), 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 0071, 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec.120, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat.

955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).

For the purposes of sec. 203, 68 Stat. 958, as cmended (42 U.S.C.

2273), $150.10 (a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.60(a) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));

$550.10 (b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and fl50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)) .

% /, , so. V2 w % ,wdAy4dsMi d N~ 5f M0'

2. I& 10 GR Pest 50, o ncv rdc00 tide i: ;&ia T a cM ^- E.s' lto read

(

, ') [n o e ! / ' C y' Py ' ? . , .g, j ,.

(e) The bission may issue a full power operating lic~ense for l a facility notwithstanding ncri-ecnpliance with other requiranents of this

! section and 10 CFR Part 50 Ap;pendix E if non-ccnpliance arises I

substantially frce a lack of participation in the develognent or inplanentation of of fsite mergency planning by a State or local goverrment, and if the applicant danonstrates to the Ccamission's satisfaction that: (1) the r mwliance could be ranedied, or adecuately ccupensated for, by reasonable State or local goverrmental cooperation; (2) applicant has cade a good faith and sustained effort to obtain the cooperation of the necessary goverrments-, (3) applicant 's offsite emergency plan includes effective measures to ecnpensate for the lack of cooperation which are reasonable and achievable under the circunstances and vhich take into accc' int a likely State or local response to an actual anergency; and (4) applicant has provided copies of the offsite plan to all goverrments which would have otherwise participated in its preparation or irrplanentaticn and has assured than that it starts ready to cooperate should they change their position.

(' <

)

17 -

(7590-01) ,

l

3. In a 5 ', 6<n. ed. d 5-#

m .. roi. p Appendit: E, 4- r.cw sult $ec t lon edded-te Sectivu 4/Aos a V u<a b o u e p / ( 6) f a .i c. / k /dc wa- .'

_' TQe nefe: Mime- '

" s y

/ 6.

4 4 4 Offsite goverrmental participation in an exercise'is not required to

/ y/d (e [

the extent ar. applicant or licensee relies upoc 10 CFR 50.47(e). In such

1. 5 cases, an exercise with participation by the a;plicant or licensee and

( other cocperating goverrmenta1 entitles sha11 be held.

%j Dated at Washington, D.C. , this day of February,1987.

,. I i'

y For the Puclear Regulatory Conmission .

d Samuel J. OJlk Secretary of the Ccomission, bl mN

/ /l 0 7 i r >- f ~

e"<. . < - - t,, e y Pr. J. a c . . s r, d' <<b/< 4^r a / a..PA:,,,7,,. ps ,,3w/,,s. ;

,e ,q, t'e <

l

. . 1

.o .

6 l Island citizens' group.) The remaining 11,000 comments were more evenly divided between supporters and opponents of the proposed rule.

/ F Briefly, we 'dould answer the four key questions  !

/ Y glisted above as follows:

[#,d

'q (1) The approach taken in the proposed rule is fully consistent with the law. In the NRC r / r . j Authorization Act of 1980 and two subsequent i f authorization acts, Congress made clear that in i C @f( //'f)r a local situation in which there is no adequate state or QE Y.-.) f reviewemergency plan, the NRC is expected to a utility-prepared emergency plan. To the Yf/Nq[extentthattheruleprovidescriteriafor hypnLg evaluating a utility plan in cases of state and local non-cooperation in emergency planning, it is p plainly consistent with those enactments. But 5

quite apart from those statutory provisions (which have now expired) the commission has taken the position, in the July 1986 LILCO _decisi nn - that NRC has the authority and the legal obligation to consider a utility plan in situations of state and local non-participation in emergency planning.

Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986).

Also August 5, consistent with this view is the fact that on 1987, the House of Representatives defeated, by a margin of 261 to 160, an amendment

, ,yI which would have barred the NRC from applying the p,f ug/ rule 133 change to the Cong. Rec. Shoreham 87178 (daily ed. and Seabrook Aug. 5, 1987).plants.

/f f/ v (2) On the policy issue of whether states and localities should have the authority to decide the ME P adequacy of offsite emergency planning for j -

completed nuclear plants (i.e., even if states and h[i /

Y localities do not now have that authority by law),

we see no basis for the Commission to substitute Qkgh Y its judgment for that of the Congress, which has pk/ decided that "if a State or local plan does not exist that complies w*ith the (NRC) guidelines and rules, ... NRC still may issue an operating license i; it deterLines that a State, local, or utility plan provides reasonable assurance that -

\

t T /-

7 public health and safety is not endancered by operation v. the facility." (Emphasis added)

Conference Report H96-1070 (June 4, 198 C ) , at 27.

hggy M testimony(3) The Commission has made clear, especially in and responses to Congressional questions

.T 4\j* 3s since the proposed rule was published, that the f

I9 _L gr rule was not intended to diminish public protection. The rule is consistent with the

, )/r 7 #)

, y V two-tier approach adopted by Congress in

1. e Section 109 of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980.

pqf< Congress, while stating its clear preference for d.tr6

'a state or local plan that met all NRC standards, also authorized licensing on the basis of a lesser standard in situations in which a state or local plan that met all NRC standards did not exist:

the existence of a state, local, or utility plan that provides ' reasonable assurance that public -

health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility concerned.' P .L. 9 6-23 5, Sec. 109 ( b) (1)-( B ) ( 1 ) ( II ) .

The rule change would not affect the statutory minimum standard of "reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered," nor the requirement of 10 CPR S 50.47(a)(1) that for an operating license to be issued, there must be l

, "reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.' Thus it would not diminish public protection. (Many opponents of the rule assumed the contrary.)

(4) Contrary to the assumption of most

, commenters,. both those favoring the proposed emergency planning rule and those opposed to it, the proposed rule.was not intended to assure the licensing of any specific plant or plants.. In reality, the rule merely establishes the framework for the resolution in a specific case -- the outcome of which would be unpredictable -- of the adequacy of offsite emer planning where state and local authorities pposed to plant operation and i

have declined participate in emergency planning. Whether, in such a case, the utility could demonstrate to the NRC's satisfaction that l

l

8 it had met the applicable standards would be determined only after multi-tiered administrative adjudication, probably followed by judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals (and possibly in the U.S. Supreme Court as well).

The answers to the above questions make clear that there is no legal barrier to the adoption of the proposed rule, with or without modification, if the Commission decides as a policy matter to l follow that course of action. l Thus the Commission has, as a legal matter, i a range of policy options from which to choose. '

Essentially, we see five basic options: (1) to adopt the rule as originally proposed and described in the March 6 Federal Register notice; (2) to adopt the rule with modifications and clarifications that respond to the comments received and are consistent with Commission testimony and responses to Congress on the intended scope and effect of the rule, for example, to make clear that no diminution of public protection is intended; (3) to adopt the rule, and go f urther to provide that in cases of state or local non-participation, plant operation can be authorized on a showing that the utility has exercised its 'be,st efforts" (this option might legally require a new round of proposed rulemaking); (4) to provide by rule that in cases of non-participation of state and local authorities, off-site emergency planning is necessarily inadequate and full-power operating l 7 licenses therefore may not be issued; and (5) to terminate the rulemaking without changing existing

- , p/ rules in anyinway. We will discuss each of these approaches turn.

Adopt the rule as originally proposed t

Vt( /YR(

t gf ) and described in the March 6 Federal l g d(y Register notice.

k U hi's option could be said to have the virtue of

1, v fsimplicity, in that the rule and the supplementary "V/f Information could be issued in final forn. without significant change, other than to add a discussion

\,! ggF / of why the comments received did not lead to 1 Mw a ba . -,, , ,, .,, w-,- ,,- - . . - - . - , , - - - - - - - - - - - , e-,,,y, ,--.e ,--,c ,,,-nw-,,,n,,---,,,.,--,,-,.--,,www,m-- ---,,-,-s---

10 reality required applicants to demonstrate their

'best efforts" e.s one prerequisite for obtaining a decision on whether their emergency plan met standards of adequacy. The Commission had emphasized in the notice of proposed rulemaking itself: "For each license application, the Commission would remain obligated to determine that there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately protected.

If the Commission, for whatever reason, cannot find that the statutory standard has been met, g- then the license cannot be issued. " 52 Fed. Reg. 6980.

s y, ;(

/\

'@J T ( 1' All the foregoing suggests that without some 1

11 t ,,

y (modificationandelaborationintheruleandthe Supplementary Information, there is likely to be j 7 F continued uncertainty about the intended scope and

{ es / effect of the rule, f \-j. I h E c (2) Adopt the rule with modifications and 6I clarifications consistent with Commission

\ ) testimony and responses to Congress on the

$. \\

\d Q,Y .E)\@ intended scope and effect of the rule, for example, to make clear that no dimin'ution y g 'lr 'of Public protection is intended, b , This. option presupposes that the NRC would inter.d

.k

. to work closely and cooperatively with PEMA in the implementation of the option. While FEMA had made clear its view on the importance of state and local participation in the emergency planning process, and on the limitations inherent in the review of a utility plan, we do not view it as unwi.lling to evaluate utility plans if the NRC

. adopts this course of action.

Arguing in favor of this approach are several considerations, including the following:

l (a) This approach woulo providd

< an NRC

&& consideration of economic c Approimaei$I 10% of those comment lettd s that addressed issues, indicated a view that the NRC was not permitted by the Atomic Energy Act to consider costs as a basis for any rulemaking, but should only consider the health and safety of the public.

Issue 11. Is an Environmental Impact Statement Required?

Only several comment letters indicated that an environmental impact statement was required prior to promulgation of this rule. The rational expressed by these writers was that if this rule becomes final, Shoreham and Seabrook would obtain their operating license, resulting in a major federal action affecting the environment.

4 e

6