ML20196J899
| ML20196J899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1988 |
| From: | Lanpher L SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR45866, RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 52FR45866-00017, 52FR45866-17, NUDOCS 8803150090 | |
| Download: ML20196J899 (166) | |
Text
h$0 Y kk1h. t/C 5 KIRKPATRICK & gggT /rf. Swd souTu to ghpoq0CEDURES BR exC- m nm M ctrrr, NikE@ ""^"8"
' ON l BOSTCN, MA 02109 y Wash i!7FCN, D.C. 20%Al tem m m d g -4. ' P 2 :10 m. mcmt mm, M1AMI. Ft mH s 1 '
mrmcx con nam ' m9 m4m lnm *:.w rt oc u iw cmu autmo
1 TELECOrttA GCD US91N N1GH, PA 15222 5379 6
LAWRENCE CoE tAMn ( )
em mm ccn nvolt March 2) '1988 J '
pee n, ber 9,190 David F/iyer 9 FK Vf%G s Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch U.S. Nticlear Regulatory Commission
[
+ tail Stop: 4 00(' OmBB Washington, L';C. 20555 Re: ,
Commente Draft NUREG-06541 FEMA-RE Rev. 1, Supp. 1; 52 Fad, h 45,866 (1987) s
Dear Mr. Meyer,
On February 2[, 1968, the undersigned sent to you comments od hohalf of Suf folk Co .hty '1nd New York State relat,ed to Draf t NUPfC-06E*, Rev. 1, Sup6 i.
4 In those com;nents t it was stated th<t .luffolk County.and New York State were filiaq a brief on Maich 1 with the United Stater Count of' Appeals for the First Circu.!t in which the Coverny..ents would demonstrate that the underlying rule which the Draf t NUREG-0654 sur oleme'.t seeks to imi.leme7t is illegal. We also stated that that n.-lef would be stibmi:.ted .to r/ou as an additional conuhent on the. orait supple-ment. i In conformance with my February 29 letter, I horeby enclose a copy of the I)rief of Petitioners New Ycr).. State, Governor Mar".) M. C u oe.iv , and Suffolk Cc,enty" dated !.c.rch 1, 1968, and filed in Dockn No. '88-1121 in the United State.1 Court of Appealt. Tec the Fl.rst Circuit.
Sincerely yours,
\ w j t .,% t d L' __
s' ', Lawrence Coe Lanpher Enclosure '
< t -
s n cc: Richard J. ?anuleuter, E.iq.N Stephen B. Lathah, Esq.
W.!111am R. Cumm.hg,.Esq. 4 s s s G803130Yr0 080002- ' '
PDR NUHEG 3 . .
%54 C ' N8DR ,'
l V , lf&j,- [Gd ])7l$ ,
l o -. e
,/ 1 I
m i
- . UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT !
. l l
l
)
STATE OF NEW YORK, )
MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR, and )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) :
)
Petitioners, ) l
) ;
- v. ) Docket No. 88-1121
) (Consolidated with ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and ) Docket Nos. 87-2032 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) and 87-2033) .
REGULATORY COMMISSION, )
)
Respondents, )
)
PUBUC SERWCE COMPANY OF )
NEW HAMPSHIRE; NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT ) '
l AND RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC. )
EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY; ) ,
and SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR )
SECURE ENERGY, INC., ) ;
)
Intervenors. ) .
) !
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '
I hereby certify that copies of the BRIEF OF PETITIONERS NEW YORK STATE, GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, AND SUFFOLK COUNTY were served upon the fol-lowing by hand delivery, or by Federal Express as noted, this 1st day of Mr.rch,1988: ,
Robert Abrams, Esq.* William H. Briggs, Esq.
4 Attorney General of the Solicitor State of New York Peter G. Crane, Esq. l Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Office of the General Counsel ,
Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway 1717 H Street, N.W.
Room 3-118 l Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
New York, NY 10271 i
I i
I i
, i
)
I 1
I l
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.* Jacques B. Gelin, Esq.
'Special Counsel to the Governor Land and Natural Resources Division Executive Chamber Appellate Section . ;
Two World Trade Center U.S. Department of Justice 57th Floor 10th and Constitution Ave.
New York, NY 10047 Room 4414 Washington, D.C. 20530 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.* Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Harmon & Weiss Building 158 North County Complex 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 :
Veterans Memorial Highway Washington, D.C. 20036 Hauppauge, NY 11788 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.* Frank W. Ostrander, Esq.
Donald P. Irwin, Esq. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts James N. Christman, Esq. One Ashburton Place Hunton & Williams 19th Floor 707 East Main Street Boston, MA 02108 P.O. Box 1535 Richmor 5, VA 23212 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.* James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq. e Ropes and Gray Suite 240 225 Franklin Street 130019th Street, N.W.
Boston, MA 02110 Washington, D.C. 20036 .,
Robert A. Backus, Esq.* Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 116 Lowell Street 2300 N Street, N.W.
P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C. 20037 Manchester, NH 03105 Francine K. Weiss, Esq.
1300 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
/
n bw'
- Served by Federal Express Karlag. Letsche
- c. scc lc ,
i
.n
i I
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
)
STATE OF NEW YORK, )
MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR, and )
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
l
- v. ) Docket No.88-112L
) (Consolidated with UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and ) Docket Nas. 87-2032' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) and 87-2033)
REGULATORY COMMISSION, )
)
Respondents, )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Petition far Review NEW HAMPSHIRE; NUCLEAR MANAGM.iENT ) of Nuclear Regulatory AND RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC.; ) Commissica Order EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY: )
and SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR )
SECURE ENERGY, INC., )
)
Intervenors. )
)
ADDENDUM TO BRIEF OF PETITIONERS STATE OF NEW YORK, GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, AND SUFFOLK COUNTY March 1,1988
ADDENDUM TO BRIEF OF PETITIONERS STATE OF NEW YORK. GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO. AND SUFFOLK COUNTY Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Emergency Planning. 44 Fed. Reg. 75,167-74 (December 19, 1979)
Document 1 Excerpts from Transcript of Public Meeting, NRC Staff Presentation on Final Rulemaking on Emergency Preparedness. (June 18, 1980) Document 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appropriation Authorization, Pub. L. No.96-295, 94 Stat. 780 (1980) Document 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Emergency Planning. 45 Fed. Reg. 55,402-13 (August 19, 1980)
Document 4 10 CFR $ 50.47 (prior to 1987 Amendment) Document 5 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (prior to 1987 Amendment) Document 6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Licensine of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline To Cocoerati in Offsite Emergency Planning. 52 Fed. Reg. 6980-87 (March 6,1987)
Document 7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, 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 Offsite Emergency Planning. 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078-87 (November 3,1987)
Document 8 10 CFR $ 50.47 (af ter 1987 Amendment) Document 9 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (after 1987 Amendment) Document 10 Transcript of Telephone Prehearing Conference in Long Island Lightine Co._ (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (February 25,1988)
Document 11
i Long Island LighMng Co.. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Confirmatory Memorandum - j and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary i Disposition of Contentions 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 1 and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation)
- slip op. (February 29,1988) Document 12
i I
Document la Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Emergency Plannine.
44 Fed. Reg. 75,167-74 (December 19, 1979)
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
s 75167 w
proposed Rules r*d- i
- Vol 44. No.145 Wednesday, December 19. IPro e
pas sec6on of the FEDEML REGISTER contains retic *e to the pupc of the significant for the nucleat power plant la autorrat!cally require nuclear power question, that alternative compensating plant shutdown for lack of concurrence poposed lasuaru of rWe and actions have been or will be taken
,pations. The pumose of these noecee in appropriate State and local prompdy, or that there are other government emergency response plana e C 96* **'"!'d P"50^8 *^ compelling reasons for license issuance, on the date specified in the rule unless p[i,% h* N y
,, 2. For nuclear power reactors already an exemption is granted by that date. it
- , licensed to operate,if appropriate State would:
~_ _
and local emergency response plans 1. Requie NRC concurrence in the have not received NRC concurrence appropriate State and local govemment NVCLEAR REGULATORY within 180 days after the effective date emergency response pleas CoWWISSION of this amendment or by January 1,1981, operating license 1:suance. prior to However, whichever is sooner, require the the Commission can grant an exemption 10 CFR Part 50 Commisalon to determine whether to from this requirernent 11the applicant require the licensee to shut down the can demonstrate to the satisfaction of grnergency Planning reactor. lf at the time the Commission the Commisalon that deficiencies in the soENCY:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Gnds that the IIcensee has demonstrated plans are not signincant for the plant in Commission. that the deficiencies in the plans are not question, that alternative compensating AcnoN: Proposed Rule. significant for the plant in question, that actions have been or will be taken altemative compensating actions bava promptly, or that there are other huu Aw:ne Nuclear Regulatory been or will be taken promptly, or that cornpelling reasons for license issuance.
Commlaslon, after conaldering the public there are other compelling reasona for No such operating license will be issued record ava'!able conceming licensee, continued operation. then the licensee unles: NRC finds that appropriate State and local govemment emergency may continue operation.
preparedness. and the need to enhance protective actions, including evacuation If at that time the CommJssion cannot when necessary, can be taken for any protection of the public health and make such a finding, then the safety. Is proposing to amend its reasonably anticipated population Commission will order the licenses to within the plume exporsure EPZ.
regulations to provide an interim show cause wby the plant abould not be upgrade of NRC emcrgency planning 2. For nuclear power reactors already abut down. In cases of perious licensed to operate, require a !Jcensee to regulations. In a few areas of the deficiencies, the order to show causa proposed amendments, the Commission shut down a reactor immediately if will be made immediately effectjve and appropriate State or local emergency has identi!)ed two alternatives whlch it the licensee would be required to shut response plans have not received NRC is considering. In each tostance both dowi the reactor, attematives are presented in the concurrence within 180 daya of the
- 3. For nuclear power reactors already effective date of the final amendments following summary of the proposed licensed to operate,if appropriate State or by January 1,1981, whichever is changes and in the specific proposed and local emergency response place do rule changes presented in this notice, sooner. Ilowever, the Commission may not warrant continued NRC concurrence grant an exemption from thJs ne final rule will not necessarily and the State or locality do not correct requirement if the licensee can incorporate all of the first s!tematives or the deficiencies within 4 months of all of the second attematives. nat 1,in demonstrate to the satisfacuen of the notification by the NRC of withdrawal some instances the first attemative may Commission that the deficiencies in the i of its concurrence, requ!re the plans are not significant for the plant in be adopted and in others the second Commission to determine whether to question, that alternative compensating attemative may be adopted. Further require the licensee to shut down the altematives may be adopted as a result actions have been or will be taken i reactor. Shut down may not be required promptly,or that there are other '
of conalderation of public comments, if the Commission finds that the licensee compelling rea sons for continued In ene attemathe proposed rule change (Altemativehas would not inA),
demonstrated that the deficiencies thetheplan are not significant for the operation. lf there is no concurrence, automatically require suspension of and the plant is shut down, then it must plant in question, that attemative cperations for lack of concurrence in remain shut down until such an compensating actions have been or will exempt!on la granted or until appropriate State and local ges emment be taken promptly, or that there are emergency response plans on the date concurrence is obtained.
other compelling reasons for continued 3. For nuclear power reactors already specified in the rule, even Lf the opera tion. licensed to operate, require a license to Commission by that date has not yet if at this time the Commisalon cannot shut down a reactor if appropriate State determined w hether the reactor should make such a finding, then the be allowed to continue to operate. it or local emergency responst plans do would:
Commission will order the licensee to not warrant continued NRC concurrence show cause why the plant should not be and the State or locality does not conect
- 1. Require NRC concurrence in the shut down. In cases of serious the deficiencies within 4 months of appropriate State and local govemment denciencies, the order to show cause emergency response plans prior to notification by the NRC of withdrawal will be made immediately effective and ofits concurrence. Ilowever, the operating license issuance, unless the the licensee would be required to shut app!! cant can demonstrate to the Commlesion can grant an exemption to down the reactor. this requirement 11 the licensee con entisfaction of the Cornm!ssion that tu the other alternative (Altemativa defici:ncies in the plans are not demonstrate to the entisfaction of the D), the proposed rule change would Commission that the deficjencies in the
75168 Federal Reg! ster / Vol. 44. No, 345 / Wodnesday, December 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules A
plan aro not signiDeant for the plant la proposed rulemak!ng desciibed in this question, that attemative compensating to be submitted to and concurred la by notice responds to that request, and has the NRC as a condluon of operating actions have been or will be taken been prepared on an expedited basle, license issuance. -
.,promptly, or that there are other Consequently, considerations related to compelling reasons for continued Under one attemative belns the workability of the proposed rule may considered, the proposed rule would operation. lf there is no concurrence and have been overlooked and signincant the plant is shut down. then it must requits a determination on continued ' -
impacts to NRC, app!]canta, licensees, --
remain shot don until such an and State and local governrnents may operation of plants whers relevant Stang exempuon is granted or until and local emergency resportse plans i not have been identified. Herefore, the e concurrence is regained. have not received NRC concurrenca, i NRC particularly neaks comtnanta i la both attematives the proposed rule Shutd;wn of a reactor would not foDc, 2 would: addressed to theaa points and latends to automaucaDy in every case. Under the
- I hold workshops per to preparing a
- 4. Require that emergency planning final rule to (a) present the proposed other altemauve proposal, shutdow' --
considerations be extended to rule changes to Ctate and local the reactor would be required "Emergency Planning Zones." governmerts, utiitles, and other automatically where the appropriate '
- 5. Require that applicants' and Stste and local emergency response interested parties and (b) obtala plans have not received NRC licensees' detailed emergency planning -
Implementing procedures be submi*ted comments concerning the costs, impacts- con.urrence within the presaibed time and practicality of the proposed rule. peris ds, flowever, the Commission for NRC review, ne Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
- 6. Clarify and expand 10 CR Part 50, is considering the adoption of could grant an exemption to this -
Appendix E. "Ercergency Plans for ernendments to its regulation. "Domestic requirement 11 the licensee can Production and Utillration Facilities." IJeensing of Production and UUlization demonstrate to the satisfaction of the =
Facilities," 10 CFR Part 50, that would Commlesion that the denciencies in the DQTes: Cornments should be submitted on or before February 19.1%0. require that emergency response plan are not signincent for the plant in ]
Aoomassts: Interested persons are planning considerations be extended to question, that alternauve cornpensat!ng -
invited te submit written comments and Emergency Planning Zones (discussed in actions have been or will be taken i auggestjorts on the propesed rule NUREG-0396. EPA 5:'0/1-7H16, prompdy, or that 6 are other -
changes and/or the supporting value/
- Planning Basis for the Development of engp,itt,g ,,,,,,,, gf gg,,, t, 3, Impact analysis to the Secretary of the State and Local Government concurrence ard the plant is shut down. -
Comrnission. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Radiological Emergency Response Plans then the plant must remain shut down 4 Commission. Wa shington D C. 20555, in Support of IJght Water Nuclear until such an exemption is granted oe :-
Attentioru Docketing and Service Power Plants ). Both the Commission untd concurrence is obtained. E- ~
Dranch Copies of the value/ impact and EPA have formally er.Jorsed the %e NRC Present)Y te9utres that q
he r :sfon be ex7ml in the 12 eoe Commission's Pub!! Document Room at Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 1 In add $ tion, th considering revising to CFR Part 50, a
e a g hs and ma e
, rg ac s wi mts f ,
1711 H Street. NW., Wa shington. D C. .
and at local Public Document Rooms
- Appendix P. "Emergency Plans for respond to accidents that mhht bees Si ! I f th et Production and Utilization Facilities,"la consequences beyond the site boundary, en !s, related reg atolue/im$
g ides, orderandto clarify, expand, and upgrade In this way, offsite emergency reeponse y the NRC staff anal the Commission's emngmey anning ang has W maw to b nuckar comments receivedsls of e public on the Advance regulations.: Prior to the conc uston of fcensing process. _
Notice of Proposed Rulemakir,g may be this rulemsking receeding, the To aid State and leoal governments ta obtained on request Connission m give special attendon the deselopment and implementation of to emergency planning matters, adequate emergency response plans, the y
FOR FURTNEA LNFORMaTiosd CONTACM -
Mr. Michael T. Jamgochian. OfDee of including the need for concurred in NRC,in conhnetion with several other ^
plans, on a case.by<sse basis in Federal agencies. has attempted, on a Standards Development, U,.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, % ashington* acccrdance with the modined cooperative and volantary basis, to D C. 20555 (Telephone: 501-4 0 -5965). adjudicatory procedures of to CFR Part provide for training and instruction of 2, Appendis B. Under thet Appendix, no State and lxal gos ernment personnel sVPPt th8ENTARY th70RWaT10N in june new license, constr,ction permit, or and to establish criteria to guide the 1979, the Nuclear Regulator 7 Commission began a formal limited work authorization may be preparation of emergency responae -
reconsideratfor of the role of ercergency issued without Commission plant.' llowever, in the pa st, the NRC planning in a ssuring the continued consideration of issues such as this.: has not made NRC concurrence in State protection of the publ!c beslth and Both versions of the proposed and local err.ergency response plans a safety in areas around nuclear power amendments call for State and local condition of operation for a nuclear facjhtles. ne Commission bad begun government emergency response plans powerplant; the proposed rule would co this reconsideration in recognition of the so, as explaired above.
c '
need for rnore effective emergency 'Two sic raff rdeace docv"n e.as m alaie3 planning and in response to reporta twe :nevan esic ce ra edence r for N rnpariuon and Atuaetesel to e vmod Cudenecerule fa dern. Nclear Pemer 11anta?
es sNetum et $'ait and 1xal em-geng mporee issued by responsible 0[flCes of SWWo w u pMaked fs 6nimn u. e 4 pn tud y to NRC concumece to codeir.ed a governrnent and its Congressional commnt on Septester la te's it is espected del NtMIC r#111. *Cwde and CheMo4 fur over:Ight Committees. a real vemon c4 h stucmleul rAAnn3nd Duelcpment and r,ebeton of $4te aW im]
on e.e @ tconta temvMmE be luMn Conrnet Fabohcal F.mrgeng Rupse By memorandum dated July 31,1979, eer'y wal ta eitucas te earty teso wps eded and the Cornmisslon requested that the NRC Plane ta sirwet et n W melen reed nusas eram musa fanniutna
"'" (Deceat-t. te sand serrlamii a=m dated -
i"5 " **
etaff undertale exP*dited rulemakin8 on cow.8"".34 ent e r dede u"af*"ce ** ** '"*d h' .aS^*
com:n.oo 2 A 88:'? Th* *d't'*cr i4 LMs endda== na the subject of State, local, and hcensee nuamou wy nenwed by e earr ud h corm.a.
emersency tesponse plans, no 'u n sWs (Noumlee L 18%
=w 1Dal c.* ccccma er ce we cinene an
Fed;ral Reg! ster / Vol 44, N:. 245 / Wednesday, December 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules 75169 w
g3 gesulng this rule NRC recognizes planning was conceived ae a secondary In addJtion, the Commission the significant responsibilities assigned but additional mea sure to be exercised acknowledges the impodant g the Federal Emergency Managernent in the unlikely event that an accident contribudens made this year by various pency (FEMA) by Executive Order would happen. De Commission's 1210 on July 15,1979, to coordinete the official commenters on the state of perspective was severely altered by the emergency planning around nuclear emergency planning functions of unexpected sequence of events that facilities, whose views are included as pecutive esencies. In view of FEhWs occurred at nie, AUle Island. no gew role, NRC agreed on September 11. part of the basis for these reguations.
acddent showed clearly that the ne first of these was the report of the sorg, that FEMA should henceforth chair protection provided by siting and General Accouating Office lasued the FederalIntersgency Central engineered safety features must be Coordinating Committee for bolstered by the ability to take coincident with the na seddent which Radiological Emergency Response explldtly recommended that no new planning and Preparedness (FICCC). In protective measures during the course of nuclear power plants be permitted to' an accident. ne accident also showed operate "unless offsite emergency plans addition, NRC and FEMA hsve agreed clearly that on. site conditjont end
,o perdse jolot resporsibitJty for have been concurred in by the NRC," as actions, sven if they do not cause a way to insure better emergency concurring in State emergency rcsponse significant off. site tadiological protection.GAO Report EMD-76-110.
plans prior to NRC lasuance of operating consequencee, will affect the way the "Areas Around Nuclear Facilitiea beanses. During the nut few months various State and local entides react to Should Be Better Prepared for NRC and FEMA will continue to protect the public from dangers, real or reexamine intre federal relationships Radjological Emergencie s" (March 30, Imagined associated with the accident. 1979). In addition the NRC and responsibilities regarding radiological emergency response A conclusion the Conunission diewe from this is that in carrying out its Authorization Bill for FY 1980 (S. 562) planning. lfowever, the Commisalon would amend the Atomic Energy Act to statutory mandate to protect the public require a concurred.in State plan as a does not believe that the reexamination health and safety, the Commission must shoujd serve as a basis for delay in the condition of operation ne policy be in a position to know that off site proposed rule change. consideration that underlies this At several places in the proposed governmental plans have been reviewed prodston would be consistent with the amendments, the Commission refers to and found adequate.ne CommJssion Comm]ssion's views of the health and the roles of State and local governments, Onds that the public can be protected safety significance of emergency todeed the main thrust of the proposed within the framework of the Atomic planning. One of the Commission's rule is that prior concunence in State Energy Act only if additional attention is flouse Oversight Subcommittees given to emergency response planning. developed a comprehensive document and local emergency response plans will The Commission recognizes that the be a condition for licensing ana on the status of emergency planning (peration of a nuclear powerplant. De increment of risk invohed in operation which recommended that NRC in a Commission recognizes that it cannot of reactors over the prescribed times in leadership capacity, undertake efforts to direct any governmental unit *o prepare the implementation of this rule does not upgrade its licensees' emergency plans a plan, much less compelits adequacy. constjtute an unacce table risk to the public health and eafety. and State and local plans. House Report No. 9H13. "Emergency Planning e si t ce of a equate ne Commission recognizes that this
,cYn o Around U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,"
proposal, to dew emergency planning as 90th Cong-,1st Sess. (August 8,1979).
Nhile the State and local equivalent to, rather than as secondary ns Report's recommendations were gosernments have the primary to, slung and design in public protection, s'gnificant and its findings about the responsibility under their consututional departs from its prior regulatory need for impros ed emergency police powers to protect their public, the approach to emergency planning ne preparedness lend support to the NRC's Commission, under authority granted to Commission has studied the vanous own efforts to assure that the pu,blic is it by the Congress, also has an proposals and believes that this course protected. Finally, the President :
Im riant responsibihty to protect the is the best available choice. In reaching Commission on the Accident at nree pu ic in matters of radiological health this determination, the Commission is Mile Island has recently recommended and safety. Accordingly, with an guided by the findings ofits Emergency approsed State and local plans as a understanding ofits limitations and with Planning Task Force which found the cond; tion for resuming licensing. This a sensitidty to the importance of alj need for Intensive effort by NRC oser Commlision's Report and its supportirig lesels of goverrunents working together, the next few 3 ears to upgrade the Staff Reports on emergency responses
- the Commission will comrnit in seek and reSulatory program in this area. The and preparedness are indicative of l apply the necessary resources to make Commission has also endorsed the of the problems which the NRC its part in this venture work. findings of the EPA-NRC Joint Task mar 7.d address in this rule. In this wou regard Force for policy des elopment in this i
Rat! orale for Changa the Commission notes that the already area.!mplementation of these reports by estensive record made ca emergency De proposed u!e is predicated on the the NRC in its staff guidance is planning improvements will be Commission's considered judgment in necessary for the NRC to be as effective supplemented by the report of its own the aftermath of the accident at nrce as possible in assisting those
%!e Island that safe siting and design. Special Inquiry Group and other. ongoing j governtnental units and those utilities investJgations, by any requirements of engineered features alone .lo not responsible for esecution of the plans. the NRC Authoritation Act, and by the l optimize protection of the public health ne Commission acknowledges the 1 and safety. Before the accident it was public comments solicited by thia input of over one F undred commenters Proposed rule. l thought that adequate siting in to date on the proposal to adopt new ace:rdance with existing staff guidance De proposed rule meets many of the coupt:d with the defense indepth regulations.He staff evaluation of these concerns discussed in the above comments is incorporated by reference rnentioned reports and publications, approach to design would be the herein se part of the record in this primary public protect!on. Emergency llowever, the Commlesion notes that the rulemaking proceeding. proposed rule is considered as an I
l
t 75170 Federal R:gister / Vol. 44, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules interim upgrade of NRC emergency M L nmediate action. Under the other (g)If the application is for an planning regulations and, la essence, alternative (Alternative B), the llectises clarifles and expends areas that have would be required to shut down the opersting license for a nuclear power i been perceived to be deficient as a reactor, the applicant shnu submit plant immediately in this circurnstance, 3 result of past experiences. Because the radiological emergency response plarts e Unless and until an exemption is Commission anticipates that further of State and local govemmentalinudes changes in the emergency planning granted, the licenses will not be ellowed in the United States that am wholly or :
to operate the reactor, partially within the plume exposure regulations may be proposed as more no NRC contemplates that under pathway Emergency Planning Zone experience is gained with implemanting Alternativa A initial concurrence and e
these revised regulations, as the various (EPZ), as well as the plans of State i subsequent withdrawal,if necessary, nice Mile Island investigstjons are would be noted in loca1 newspapers, govemments wholly or partially withir concluded. and as the results become Under Alternative it, puMic notice of the ingestion pathway EPZ.* Genersl}y <
the plume exposure pathwey EPZ foe '.
available frein efforts in such areas as Instrumentation and monitoring and any inJtial concurrence or withdra wal of nuclear power reactors shall consist of:
concurrence would be made both in the generic studies of accident models, these Federal Register and in local an area about to miles in radius and the proposed rules may requite further newspapers. Notice in the Federal inge:Uon pathway EPZ shall conslet of a modifications. nus the proposed rula Register and in local newspapers will an area about 50 miles in radius. ne ,
changes shodd be viewed as a first step also be provided of any required exact site and configuration of the EPZs ln improving emergency planning. surrounding a particular nuclearpower a suspension of operation, any request for Publication of these proposed rule reactor shall be determined in relation 4 changes in the Federal Register an exemption from this requirement, and to the emergency tr.sponse needs and *.
any request that an operating license be capabilities as they are effected by such' supersedes and thus eliminates the need exempt from the requirement for to continue development of the proposed concurred.in plans. Public commen ts local conditions as demography, rule change to to CFR Part 50, Appendix will be welcomed. If significant interest topography, land characteristfes, access E (43 FR 37473), published on August 23, toutee, and local jurisdictional in meeting with the staffis expressed, boundaries. The plans for the ingestion 1F8, regarding Emergency Planning the etaff may hold public meetings in the pathway shall focus on euch lese considerations outside the low population Zone (ITZ). vicinity of the site to receive and dJscuss immedjate actions as are appropriate to comments and to answer questions, protect the food ingestion pathway.
The Commisalon is considering Accordingly,in the discharge of its whether construction pemuts which 2. A new i 50 47 is added. Alternatjve dudes to assure the adequate protectJon versions of the first paragraph are have already been issued should be of the public health and safety, the presented. >
reconsidered because of the emergency Commission has decided to iseue p!annlog considerations of thl rule.For proposed rules for public comment. ne IWI f **'sency pMa.
p! ants in operation. NRC teams are now proposed change to 10 CFR 50.33,50.47, [ Alternative A:(a) No operating rr eeting with licensees to upgrade and 5054 apply to nuclear power laensee. State and local emergency license for a nuclear power reactor will reactors orJy. However, the proposed be issued unless the emergency ptans and implementing procedures.
Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 applies to respon8e plans submitted by the En developing these proposed rule productjon and utdization facihtes in channes, the Commission has applicant in accordance with I 5013(g) general except as noted in the considered the potential consequences, Appendix E. These proposals, proposed have been reviewed and conwired in by social and economic, as well as safety, the NRC.81n the absence of one or mors comments, other official reports, and concurred.in plans, the applicant wdl of the shutdown of an operating nuclear views expressed at the public power plant. Under both alternatives, have an opportunity to demonstrate to the substantive criteria to be applied in workshops will be factored into the final the satisfaction of the Commission that es aluating "hether or not a licensee rule, which the NRC now anticipates deficiencies in the plans are not will be published in early 1980. significant for the plant in question, that should be allowed to continue to Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of j operate the reactor are the same.%us, attemative compensating actJons have -
1954, as amended, the Energy been er will be taken promptly, or that both altematives reflect the %iew that, Reorganjration Act of1974, and section w hile emergency planning is important there are other compellmg reasons to
$53 of title 5 of the United States Code, permit operation ] OR for pub!!c health and safety, the notlee la hereby given that adoption of (Altemative B:(a) No operating increment of risk involve in permitting the following amendments to 10 CFR operation for a limited time in the license for a nuclear power reacter will Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part be issued unless the creergency atsence of concurred in be undue la every case. plans may50 notis contemplated. response plans submitted by the ;
Copies of comments received on the applicant in accordance with l 50 33(g)
However, the alternative rule changes proposed amendments may be I differ primarily in the course of action have been reviewed and concurred in by that would follow either non- examined in the Commission's Pub!!c the NRC.8 An applicant reay request an Document Room at 1717 li Street, NW., esemption from this requirement bssed concurrence, lack of concurrence, or I Washington. DC, and at local Public withdrawal of concurrence in relevant Document Rooms. 'Fm'swy MmW Zen (Wehhned State or local emergency plans. Under M MCnewes eau fa de one alternalive (Altemative A) an err'er PART 50-OOMESTIC UCENSING OF 8 1o show cause why the licensee should not shut down the plant may be issued PRODUCTION AND UTluZATION $$'$,n or tasu we Nain, enn n.e,$'n,'y,$,D',[*$y FACluTIES in this circumstance, but the order to 'MC ca!tfme for ne pas.comm and
- 1. Paragraph ( *I' '1"cE ra S*
show cause would not be made read as follows'.g) of I 50 33 is revisedI,mc to ramt. a s N'c'co
%de end c2=u a
immediately effecthe unless the Commission decided in the partJcular Deuk m+s and EnNeues et sme and tu.)
t 150.33 Contents of appacations; ganeral Goumut RatoW Fmrsmy Rugou cases that the safety risks wer, eformanon, sufficiently serious to warrant such * * ' ' '
wd ;s. isn.
Sy g ,Q g nsl* , gey,
rederal Register / Vol. 44, No. 245 / Wednesday, Decembe? 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules 75171 w
been concurred in8 within 100 days of local government emergency response upon a demonstration by the applicant plans do not warrant continued NRC get any deficiencies in the plans are not the effective date of the final amendments or by January 1,1981, concurrence and such Stste or local pgnincent for the plant in question, that govemment falls to correct such alternative compensating actions have whichever is sooner, the Commission been or will be taken promptly, or that will make a determination whether the deflciencies within 4 months of the date reactor should be shut down.%e of notification of the defects, the reactor geso are other compelling reasons to rmit operatfort No such operating reactor need not be shut down if the in questjon wlil be shut down. Tbe Ucensee may request an exemption from fcease will be issued unless NRCUcensee finda can demonstrate to the this requirement based upon a that appropriate protective actiors, Commleston's satisfaction that the deficiencies la the plan are not demonstration that any deficiencies in including evacuation when necessary.
een be taken for any reasonably significant for the plant in question, that the plans are not significant for the plant anticipated population within the plurne altemative compensating actions have in question, that altemative been or will be taken promptly, or that compensating actions have been or will p(oosure EPZ-b) Generall . ihe there plume arv expoeurs other compelling reasons for be taken prompdy, or that there are pthway EPZ or n 3 clear power plants continued operation.] OR [ Alternative B: other compe!!ing reasons for continued shau conalst of an area about to rniles la 11 the plaan submitted by the licensee la operation. llowever, unless and unt I radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ accordance with the subsection have this exemption has been granted by the shau consist of an area about 50 miles in not been concurred in by NRC within Commission, the p! ant shau be rodius. ne exact size and configuntion 180 days of the effecuve date of tNs maintained in the shutdown condition.]
of the EPZs surrounding a particular amendment or by January 1,19&1. (u)ne licensee of a nuclear power nuclear power reactor shall be w hichever is sooner, the reactor in reactor shaU provide for the determined in relation to the emergency question wiu be shut down until the dmlopment, uvision, ircptementation response needs and capabilities as theY concurrences have been obtained, %e and maintenance ofits emergency are affected by such local conditions as licensee may request an esetopdon from preparedness propam. To this end, the demography, topography, land this requirement based upon a ucensee shall provide for an characteristks, access routes, and local demonstration that any deGelencies in independent review of its emergency krisdictional boundaries.De plans for the plans are not algnificant for the plant papandness program at least every 12 the ingestion pathway sbau focus on months by licensee, employees, in question, that attemative contractors, or other persons who bsve such less immediate actions as are conspensating actions have been or will appropdate to protect the food ingestion be taken promptly, or that there are no direct responsibibty for pathway. other compelling reasons for continued Impicmentation of the ernergency
- 3. Section 50 54 la amended by adding openen. Ilowever, unless and until pnpandness program. ne re$lew shaU four new paragra phs, (s), (t), (u) a nd (v). this ese:npuon bas been granted by the include a review and audit of licensee A!temative passages for paragraphs (s) drtUs, e sercises, ca pabilities, and Commission, the plant abau be and (t) are provided' proceduns.The results of the review rnalatalned in the shu'down, cmdition.) ao tomn, aU l50.54 Conditions of Bcenaea, (Alteruatiye A:(t)If, after 160 daya {ndau
,g,p , 9 ,n
. . * *
- foUowing the effective date of these reported to the licensee's corporate and amendments or Januar) 1,1961, (s) Each licensee who is authorized to plant pasess and/or operate a nuclear ;cwer whichever is sooner, and during the operating license period of a nuclear g g pmanagement, g g,, ,,g, and ra ke{tdd available of rasctor shall submjt within eo days of power reactor the Commission g ,) ,,,,,
the effective date of thle amendment the (,) Within 180 days after the effective endiological emergency response plana determines that the appropriate Stata date of the Gnal rules or by January 1, of State and local governmental entities and local government emergency 1981, whichever is sooner, each licensee in the United States that are whouy or response plans do not warrant who is authorized to possess and/or partially within the plume exposure continued NRC concurrence and such opente a prWuchn or unahn pathway EPZ, as weu as the plana of State or local government fails to correct f acdity shau have plans for coping wth State governments whouy or partiauy such deficiencies within 4 months of the emergencies which meet the within the irgention pathway EPZ,8 date of notification of the defects, the requirements of Appendix E of this GeneraUy, the plume exposure pathway Commission w1U make a determinahn Chapter fyZ for nuclear power reactors shall whether the reactor shall be shut down 4.10 CFR part 50, Appendix E,is consist of an area about to miles In until the plan is submitted and has again amended as foUow s:
radius and the ingestion pathway EpZ received NRC resiew and concunence. . . . . .
shaU consist of an area about 50 mues in The reactor need not be shut down tf the radius.ne exact size and configuration licensee can demonstrate to the Appendia E-Fmrseecy Plannion and of the EPZa for a particular nuclear Commission's satisfaction that the PnPar'dme's for Production and t'taasdos deficiencies in the plan are not Faddnt power reactor shad be determined la relation to the emergency response significant for the plant in question, that I. Intm!verion needs and capabilities as they are alternetise compensating actions have Each a l affected by such local conditions as been or wiu be taken prompuy, or that required hI 50 icant M(a)for a construction to include in its permit is demography, topography, and land there are other cornpelling reasons for ,
characterisucs, access routes, and local continued operation.) OR we .i.fnee anetened three r,rdeiery edes-Jurisdictionalboundaries ne plans for [ Alternstive B:(t)If, after 160 daye : m. -rusmy r'.enus fu Nde u Po=*
the ingestion pathway shed focus on following the effective date of these f,",^ . sld '] y r "fF such less immediate actions as are amendments or after january 1,1981. Cyde Feeues and rtanie Lacennd t'nder to cnt appropriate to protect the food ingestion whichever is sooner, and during the rem so sad v: and hvucocio. -or.fi Fwsency tad Accoe C4ebu fx Ndeu pathway,[Altemative A:lf the operating license pedod of a nuclear appropriate State and local government power reactor, the Commission N,U,[yj'M*pN[,N'*
emergency response plans bas e not determines (nat the appropriate State or rootnota continued on meat paae
75172 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 19, 1979 / Proposed Rules
-m pnllrninary safety analysts report a offelte property; and the expected tropensa, of an emergency to protect public health and discussion of prehminary plans for coplits in the event of an emergency, of offsite with emergencies. Each appucant for en safety within the Emergency Plannfr4 Zonea egendes) OR (EPZ41 operating Ucense is required by I $0.34(b) to (Altemathe B:C. Protecuve measure to be include in its final safety analysis report 3,, g,,,,,, ,7 p,,g,,,7 pj,,,
taken la the event of an acddent within the plans for coping with emergencies, site boundary and within each EPZ to protect no appucant's emergency plans shaU nts appendix utabushes minimwa hulth and safety, procedures by which these conteln, but not necessarily be limited to, the requirements for emergency plaris for use la measures an to t>e carried out (es, in the attaining e state of emergency prepandness, foUowing elements: orgardzation for coping can of an evaevetfon, who authori.nes the with radiation emergencies, essessment nese plans shau be desertbed in the evacuadon, how the pubue la to be nottfled pnliminary safety analysis report and acdon, acthauon of emergency organlaation, and lastructed, how the evacuauon is to be councation procedures, emergency fac1]Jues submitted as a part of the final safety carried out): and the espected response,in analyste nport, ne potential redjological and equipment, training maintaining the event of an emergency.of offsite emergency pnpandans, and recovery, no hatarda to the pubbe enocistsd with the agenciesh operation of nsurch and tost toactore an appucant shall also provide an analysis of D. Features of the facility to be prodded the time rqu!nd to useuste vartous uctors considerably less than those involud Mth for onsite emergency f! ret aid and and distancee within the plume exposure nucleat power toactor. Consequently, the ets* decontamir.ation, and for emergency pathwey EPZ for transient and permanent cf the EPZe for Research and Test reactore transportsuon of onsite individuals to offsite Populacons.
and the degree to which comp!!ance with the tnetment factuun; requinmente of this section and sections D. A. Orgadzation F. Proviolons to be made for emergency
!!!, TV and V la necessary will be determined treatment at offstte facibuts of individula n with on a case-by-cue basis using Regulatory injured as a result oflicensed acuvities; ,,3j, ehnlaation femergene e7sh U be described Culde 18 as a standard for acceptance. State g3cgy and local government emergency n sponse F. Provisions for a tretning propsm for neph, ' dennidone of authorttles, employees of the licensee, teclud ng those ihtles and duues ofindividnis plans, which may include th plans of offsite sespd to 11cenue's emergency support organizations, shau e submitted who an essigned spectfle authority and resoonsibility in the event of an emergency. organisation, and the tr.eens of notification of mth the applicant s emergency plans. such todividuals in the event of ra andfor other persons not employees of the
!!. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Repctt emergency. S bcensee whose an:etance asy be needed in y, goe3ng,3; pecificaUy the following shaU De Preliminary Safety Analysts Report the G. esent Featuresofofathe radiological emergency' ded facility to be provi to t, A description of the normal plant shau contsin sufncient trJormatien to ensure operatir4 organtration.
the compatibility of proposed emergency '"'"" 08C*E* N I" *C'""U"8'"*"* 1 A descripuon of the onsite emusency pt*ne both for onsite anas and the EPZe with protective measures and the capability for responn organtution with a detailed fedlity desi featres. site layout, and site facihty teentry in order to midgete the location withreepect to such censideratione consequencee of an accident or,if discunton of:
appropriate, to continue opersuon: a. Authorities,responsibihties and dutfu of ce access routes eurroe.ndes population R A preliminary anal)sie whjch prcjects the individual (s) who wtB tak e chstge during dlstributions, and land use for the Emergency an emergency:
ptg gong igp7g the time and means to be employed in the
- b. Plant staff emergency an!gnments:
As e minimum, the fo!!owing items abau W notification of State and local gosernments ducnbed . c. Authonties ruponsibthtjes, and duties and the public in the event of an emergency,
< A. Onsite and offsite crganjaations for A pnliminary anel)els of the time required to of an onsite emergency coordinator who shau l coping with emergencies, and the means for be la charse of the eschange ofinformauen i evemate various sectors and dlstances with offsite authontles troponeible for noufication. in the event of an enmergency, of within de plume uposan pathway ETZ for persons assigned to the emergency transient and permanent populations, coordinating and impelementira offsite organtsstions; em,rgency musuru.
lit. The AnolSefety Ano/ysis Reporf 3. A dascription of the licensee
- 8. Contacts and artar4ements made and headqui tiers personnel that wiu be sent to j
documented mth local. State, and Federal ne Final Safety Anal sis Report shad the pla i site to provide augmentation of the governmental agencies mth responsibthty for contab de emusency p ans fu copW wd ottatte emergency organJ2ation, coping with emergenden. includes emergericles.no plans shou be an idenufication of the pnncipal agencies. espession of the overau concept of 4. ldent2 cation, by positica, of persorts eration, whJch ducnbe the esunt!al wtthin the Licensee organization w he wiu be k(Alternative taken in the nentA:ofC. Protectn an accident e measures within ofunents e toof adsance plartning that heta been ruponsible for makir,3 offs!te dose the site boundary and mthin each EPZ to considered and the previolons that have been proRct ots and a descmption of how these protect health and safety; correctise projections wtu be made and the ruults made to cope with emergency situations.De plans thaU incorporate information about the transmitted to Stete and local authonun, )
measures to prnent damage to onsite and NRC, FDM and other appropiate eciergency tesponse rolee of supporting gos ernrnental ent10ts. {
Footnota continued from last gate attitati ns and ffsite egencies.Dat S. IdentMcation, by position and far ction, I
l sue and tNo Apped for cepm3 with ormadon shall be sufficient to provide of other employees of the licensee with emerseactesL Copwe of th g4 des am seg!!able et escura Ce of COordinaIIon amoEs the the Commiestoa e Pubhc Document Room 173r H supporting groups and between thern sad the optclalquahncations (of coping with Strut . NW, Wuhirtton. D C 20555 Copies of licensee, emergency condations whlch may artse. Other rundes may be psrdened from the Goumment persons with special qua!MeaUons, sach a e
[ Alternative A: ne plans sabmJtted must Prtanns Omce. triformebon ce current pMces may include a ducription of the elements set out consujiants, who an not ecyte)en of the be oblateed by meting the U S Necjeat Regdatory bcensee and who may be caued upon for in Section IV to an estent sufDclent to g eg gt,, g c= = "a#= demnsi,sie thai the ptans prodde setistance for short or long term emergenen .uu also be identmed. no em st:4 of th UZs for a sudear remer p! ant reasonable assurance that appropriate specla! quehncatjons of these persons shall sheD be determined in reladon to the ewteney measures can and wiD be taken la the eunt be desenbed.
ruponu noeds and capabares as they are effected of an emergency to protect public bulth and e. A description of th local offsite service e by eed local con &uoes se demegraphy, safety and mlntmise damage to property wposnphy, land characiemeuca. eccses routea and to be provided in support of th bcenne within the Ernergency Planning Zones emergency organinsuon.
local briodictional bosndertes Generally. the espcean pathw ay EZ for ! sht m eter avele plume (EPIs)1 OR F,ldenuncation of and espected eselstance
- ' ' ' " Indude ( Alternsthe B:De plans submitted must from appropriate State, local, and Federal ere on pa ey E'F'Z a descriptJon of th eternents set out e agencies mth responsibilities for coptr,5 *Ilh abovi so e he tn redtus 22: em 4.eusied la in SectJon IV to an estent eJncient to emergencies, facess m stu of the are foe non pewee demonstrate that the plans prodde ructors shau t e deterstaed es e cue.by<ue e Identacation of the State and/orlocal reasoc,able soeurance that appropriate officials responsible for plann!ng for, bus musures can and wiu be taken in the event ordertag, notacation of, and controlltrts
i
' l Tederal Regisler / Vd. 44, Na 245 / Wednesday. December it.1979 / Proposed Rules 75173 to the pubuc within the pluine exposure e. Directors ce coordinatots of the plant M' prote(tive actions,induding rathwey Emergency Planning Zone.11 to the geasstauoo8 when necessary, emergency organlaation.
n, applicant's responsibuity to enaun that such b. Personnel responsible for accident Ipeessment e eans ealst. regardlese of who implementa e esesement, laduding control room shift
,ons to be provided for determin this tsquirement. personnet es s*8' (redfoId te$1a shall be F. Faergency ract!! des ond F4 ulpment gR ological monit rirg tes e es 80 nduding i emergency action lents Provielone shau be made and ducribed f" emergency fact!!aes and equipment,
- e. Repalt and da msge controf tea ms.
6sthso for be und se nonfication and citteria for paructpation of detertnining laduding- f. Ftret aid and rescw teams.
- 3. local seruce e penonnel, e o local Civil 98 and state a encies and ths Chmmlesion 1. Equipment at the site for penonnel
' Defense. local lo w enforcement personnel M don le e th I o be sud Lq eat for detennining the inagnitude ""(( ",'yp*'0
- g, E* ",*['d aie assesses ao relea-se yysioyc,1wios e,,gn tnformauo determining of.nd of r- conun-sya tedjoacuve materia to the endronment; o u a nseesbe t,n suppet ti,e menares should be 3. Facilides and supplies et the alte for p,ng decontaminadon of onsite indjvidua!s: g 3,en,4 g enthin the outeide the site 4 Faciliun and medical supplies at the site T b p!a a N ribe pmytstons for the b'endan to protect health and safery and t smage to property.The emergency for appropriate emergency first aid treatment; conduct of yearly dnUs and esercises to tot wela shau be based on in. plant 8. Anagements for the services of a the adequacy of timing and content of implementig procedsen and methods, to
,,ogoons and instn. mentation in addition to physician and other toedical personnel test emergency equJpment and 8dg, and offsite monitones. Thee, quabfled to handle radiation emergencies:
' con levels shall be discussed 6. Artengemente for transportauen of communlcadon networks, and to ensun that
,d upon by the applicant and State ud W!gournmental auth nties and tr@ red or contaminated individuale from the Mg
[*g"8'[h8'(("P'"y" ,3
{ejatreatment facthties outside the site shau spectf;cally include participation by sPProved by C Theys ,
Ul be 7 A,r gements for treatment of offsite person.nel as descnbed abose as well ental authonho on an annual buts. d in p ce : ao en ag Oct rsoon of Em"gency Orgerdzabon
{( ua s , g, ,g,n , pt!n ,u . ,
oi.teide the s;te boundaryt provisions for a joint esercise involving the ne entire spectrum of emergency 8. One onsite technical support center and Faderal. State, and local re spor.se easdidons which invohe the alerting or ene near site emergency operauen center orgenlaauons. De scope of such an exercise ecention of progresshely larger segments of from which effective direction can be given should tut as much of the emergency plans g total margency orgarutebon shall be sad effective control can be eserdsed during ae is reasonably achievable without involving ds cebed. ne commun)c4 don steps tahen to en emergencyt J .11 pubbc partcipatjon. Defitutae
'1ert or activate emergency personnel under 9. At least one onsite and one offsite performance criteria shau be established for c6 dass of errergency shall be desenbed. commurucauona ey stem, including redundant au levels of participation to ecoun an gaugen action lesels (based not only on power sources. This willindade the obleebo evaluation. nis joint Federal, cesite an7 office redianon monJtong commurucauon artergements for State. and local eurdse sball be-grarmacon but a!so on readings frorn a '*"sencies. Including titles and alternate, 1. For presently opereunt plants. Initis!!y member of sensors that todacate a potennal for those in charge at both ends of the within one year of the effectee date of th2s seargency wch as the preseu.,e in communjeston Ltahe and the primary and amendment and once eury (Alternatne A; conta.nment and the response cf the backup means of communica uon. Where three years] or (Alternadio B. fhe yean) gaugucy Core Cooly Sy stem) fo, consistent with funcuon of the gosernrnentaj thereaftn.
sot 2 canon of offsite agencies shaU be agency, thne enagements wiu indude, 3. For a plant for which an operating desmbeii De eirstence, but not the detCls, e. Prosision for communicauona with bcense is leeued after the effecun date of of a message authenneaaon scheme shau be contigwus Statellocal overnments within this amendicent. trJtf ally within one )est of noted for such ager.cies. de plume oposun pat =ay Emegency the issuance of the opersting liceese and D Notification Procedaes Plannm3 Zone. Such communicabons shaU be once every lAlternadio A: three yeen) or teste6 monthly. [ Allernadu B. th e )ea rsj thereafter.
- s. Admiaistrah e and ph)sical means for b. Provuien for communicadone with All trairuns provisions shau provide for notJyv4 and agreements reached with, Federal emergency response organts.tjona, formal enuques la order to es slusta the local. State, and Federal oftcla!s and Such commurucauona s) stems shau be tuted ernergency plen'a effectn eness ud to ccnect agencies for the early warrug of the publ:c antiv aUy.
weak areas through feedback with enchasis and for public eucus ton or other protective c. Prodston for communica hons betw een de nudest facihty, State and/or local on schedules, lesson pf ans. pract cal tratnics, t:essures, should they become necessary, and penodic enamananons.
shau be described. Tlus descr puon sh4U emngency cperatione centers. and field indede idenhficahon of the pnncipaj assessment teams Such commutucat.ons G. kfainta!rtira Einergency Preparedness cftcials. by tit!e and agencies. for the systems shall be tested annusuy. Provisions to be employed to etteure that Emergency Planning Zocea '(EPZa). F. Training O' 'F"8Y P 8" I
"' ISP I'*'ohn8 L Provisions shall be desenbed for the procedaes and emergency equipment and yearly diesemination to the public within the plume espesure pathway EPZ of basic of pfo dnHs.of n fa, radianon si, emergency y [nNg plans to ensun y , 'g," *
- d W D M M N mergency planrung informadoo each as the H E "'7 that employees of the beer.see are famthat possibility of nucine accidents, the potenual with their specific emergency response human health effects of such seddents and Criteria to be used to deterraine when to their causes, methods of nonfication, and the daun, a nd (2) the pardcTehon in the the nient possible, followirs an acc2 dent, training and dn!!a by other persons whose reentry of the facihty is appropriate or when protective actions ptanned if an accident assistance may be needed in the eunt of a occurs, a s well a s a listtrig of local broa dca st operation should be contmued.
radiation emergency shall be desenbed. This oetwork that will be used foe dipemination of Laformauon dunt.: an emergency.
shellindude a desenpuon of speelebted V Wementies hocedures trabal treuung and penodic retraining No less than 180 day a priot to scheduled
- 3. Administnuve and physical entano, and pregums to be provided to each of the the time required, shaU be described foe issuance of an operatmg Ucense.10 copies foMowing categories of emergency personrieb eath of the appbcant's detailed implem;enung dtutirts and providig prompt instructuna
- procsdures for its emergency plan shall be pbbs withta the pLee esposare pathmey IP2 submJtted to NRC Headquarters and to the
' A le up.cted that the capabdity wt3 be .3 thia 18 sunutes cd the notAaton by the Bcenen Pnn4ded te essenually complete Certing d the appropriate NRC Regional Office: Pr9vided of ha! and $ge ot5c14ts, that,in caen whue the opentig Ucun to
75174 Federal Reglster / Vol. 44, Na 245 / Wednesday, Dec mber 19, 1979 / Propos:d Rules M
scheduled to be fisued less than too days roR rvRTHER INroRMAftoN CONTACT! Board was aware that much o[ th, '
efler the effecth e date of this rule, such Denton F.Massell(Office of Regulations terminology of the regulation is e shau be submitted and legally recognized through it **
tmplementing procedane,ithin as soon se practicable, w 80 de e afterand Emergency Planning). Economic Regulatory Administration Room 7112, consistency with the Uniform
' 2000 M Street, N.W., Weshinston D.C.
ppYn$s'E. CommercialCode. Althoughlanguy v) wt e revi IJcensees who are authertsed to operate a 20461 (202) 254-7303, j nuclear power fact!1ty shall subrnit to copies !ssud to Weshington, D.C December 13, improvements brevity were and clarity, care made was taken to sch eoch of the licensee's emergency plan gpg, to alter legal co?cepts through stytig tmplementing procedures to NRC change, g 11eadquarters and to the appropriate NRC F' M Bd Ass /s ton Adm/nis tmfor, /tsplations oad Yne Board notee that the revised S RegionalOfDee. As necessary to maintata material was drafted to confoitG them up to dete thersafter,10 coptn esch of Emergency Planning. Economic Roylo tory Adahti8tNtio^ generally wi the new part of any changea to then implementing procedures shad be submitted to NRC p ooassas r9 4 n u-ra saw aal Regulation J. Subpart C ( Automated .q lleadquarters and to the same NRC Regional en.t.no coce asso.es-as Cleating House Items) whlch the Bog Office within 30 days of such changes, recently approved for public commeg 3 (44 FR 67995). Only minor editorf al (Sec.161, Pub. L 83-703,64 Sta t. 944 (42 e USC. 2.:01h Sec. 201, a s amended. Pub.1. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEld changes will be required to conform a 1 es-43a, se Stat.1242. Pub. L 94-79, se Stat. final version of Subpart C with the a 413 (42 U.S C. Sm).) 12 CFR Part 210 revised Subparts A and B.
- Dated at Wa shjngton. D C, th! 13th day of his notice is published pursuant to '
December 1979. [ Reg. #, Docket No. R-42441 section 553(b) of Title 5, United States *'
For the Nucleat Regulatory Commisalos Code, and i 262.2(a) of the rulee of Co!! action of Checks and Other items procedure of the Board of Governors.
8*"'I IM and Transfer of Funde Secutory c/t/s Commission ne proposalis made under the ActNcy: Doard of Governors of the authority of sections 11 and to of the g o,, mm., n, g Federal Reserve System.
eu.mo coce remi-a Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 248 (j),
Acnom Proposed rules. (o)), which authcrize the Board to promulgate rules governing the transfer,' I svuuARY: By this action the Board of funds through Federal Reserve Banka.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERQY proposes to clarify and si;nplify its To aid in the consideradon of this -
Economic Rt3ulatory Adm!ntstration regulations on the collection of checks material by the Board, interested and other items and for wire transfers of persons are invited to submit relevant '
10 CFR Part 570 funds. It is not intended that any data, views, comments, or arfuments, 8I ' 8' * '
To bphmed its proposal, N Board
[ Docket No. ERA A 79-541 h" 3,," gfp*,"3[; gti e at a set dlng forth in these regulatory provisions. as [t {9, h b "lh Standby Gasoftne Rationing Plan 2 ActNcy: Economic Regulatory Dart: Comments must be received on or Administrction, Department of Energy, befon February 15,198a ND ADomess: Comments, which should refer PART 210--COLLECTION OF CHECKS ActioM: Notice of Additional Public to Docket No. R-o266, may be mailed to Hearing. AND OTHER ITEMS AND WIRE neodore E. Allison, Secretary, Board of TRANSFERS OF FUNDS suu WARY:On December 7,1979, the Governors of the Federal Reserve S) stem,20th Street and Constitution subpart A-Conection of Ctsechs and Other Economic Regulatory Administration Hems fERA) of the Department of Energy Avenu e, NW., Wa shington. D.C. 20551.
(DOE) issued a notice of proposed or delivered to Room B-2223 between se.
rulemaking and public hearings to 8.45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Comments 210 1 Authonty. purpose, and scope.
receive comments on its proposed received may also be inspected at Room 210 2 Defiiduons.
B-1122 between 8.45 a en. and 5:15 p m, 21o.3 ceneral proustons.
Standby Ca oline Rationing Plan (44 FR 210 4 Sending items to Reserve Bar3 3.
70799. December 10,1979). Public except as provided in section 261.6(a) of 210s 5ende e agnemen necury by bearings are scheduled for Doston, MA, the Board's Rules Regarding Availability p,, , ,
San Francisco, CA, Chicago, ti. New ofInformation (12 CFR 261.6(a)). 2106 Status, w arranun, and 11stihty of Orleans, LA and Washington, DC, roR FURTHER INFORM AhoM CONTACT: Rom e Bari.
He purpose of this notice is to Lee S. Adams, Senior Attorney (202/ 210.7 Presenting items for papmet. I schedule a additional public hearing on 452-3594), legal Division, Board of 210t Presenting noncash items for the proposed Standby Casoline Covernors of the FederalReserve acceManu-Rationing Plan in Seattle, WA. System Washington, D.C. 20551, 810 8 P 8 Y"'n '
oAfts: Hearing January 3 and 4,1980, syPPLE MENTARY INFORM ATioN:As part t fo bt begl'ining at 9:30 a m. Requests to speak ofits Regulatory Improvement Project, 210 11 Avai!abihty of proceeds of noncash must be received by December 28,1979. the Board has reviewed the regulatory items: time schedule.
ADDRE S St s: Hearing locatlon: New framework for the collection of checks 21012 Return of cuh items.
Federal Building. 915 2nd Avenue, South and other items and for wtre transfers of 21013 charseback cf unpaid items.
Auditorium (4th Moor), Seattle, WA funds that are set forth in Subparts A 21014 Extension of time limits.
98174, and B of Regulation J.De Board has Subpart 5-Yore Transfer of Funds Requests to speak should be determined that, while substanth e "" '
F addreened to: Department of Energy, changes in the regulation were not h"h$#'s n "
Attn: Janet Marcan,1W2 Federal required,it was destrable to redteIt the 21027 General provisions.
Duilding,915 ?.nd Avenue, Seattle, WA rega!ation to clarify and sim lify the 2101s Media for tranaferitems and 96174. language. to redrafting Re ation i, the requ eta.
i
! 1
Document 2:
Excerpts from Transcript of Public Meeting, NRC Staff Presentation on Final Rull making on Emergency Preparedness _
(June 18,1980) 1 1
l I
i
I 3
1.5 .. UNITED STAfts CF ABERICA l'
IUCLEAR REGULATORT CONI!85!05 8
4 STAFF PREstNTATION 05 '
5 FINAL BULIIIIIIC of EttRGtWCT 788713t05E88 8
PUBLIC MIETING 7
fuelear Regulatory Cosaission 8
Boon 1130 1717 N Street, I. 5 Washington, D. C.
9 10 VedneuJny, June 18, 1980 11 the Consission set, pursuant to notice, at 2:0$ p.a.
1A '
BET 0Its 13 14 J0EI T. ANtillt. Chairaan of the Commissica JOSEPE I. MIEDRIt, Consissioner BICRilD T. K33530Y, Loasistiasee il TICT0t GILIEStY, cosaissiomec ,
it LL50 Pitst3ft O L. ItCtWIT R. NABIAMAX tt 3. 33Ayat E . C013 tl.L tt F . SO LLt t
- 8. GRIELS 2 E. J1ECOCEI13
- 1. SEIItt0 21 J. IcCONNEL, FEM y 1 E. PtitINS l 21
=
M q I '/0 0 lY b
. c _g l
,'.' j $
.~ g
..N .. .
um wonme cowam.=e,
.j .
. _ see ?m emett, g w nyorme svuest.* r;Tw. s.e. someteen gNee
- .. . 62 t
{
eere probless for the sear-tera OL's accomplishing all ve 3
seed ta accesplish for these.
3
- 33. COLLEtt They don't necessarily have to do it 4 by that date.
The date voeld relate te when ther vas t to S
start up and when ther vast their operatias licosse.
4 It. CRItts:
There are some that voeld start up 7
hetere the rule voeld be effective or hefora the other 4 plaats start up.
9 CRAItt&E AREARNts Why don 't ros go ahead , Ka rl.
W It. COLLEta The next issue is the potential state i
11 or local goverasent veto power. '
t2 Can I have the sert slide, please.
11 (text slide.)
M II. GOLLtta This 1,s takerent la this rule. As 13 yet haev, we ha9e discussed this subject before. The veto M
power reference is a cellegetalise used by ceaseaters for 17 the potential failure of a state er local government to 4
develop and/or implement as acceptable esorgener plan f or 4
aar r64sen and therehr blocklag licensing and/or operation B et a plant. Not just applicants and licensees but also 2i state and local severssent represen tatives consen ted on R this.
3 image.
I vast to note also that the Acts consented on this M
5 I voeid also note that all the consents on this pelat sispir acted potential.
There were no suvcestions on d
ameneen aro m macommem.ar.
. ..... e
- - .c -
63 1 bee te reestv. it.
8 CIA!3545 AESAINI4 I venid aise sete that the 8 setherisaties blu, tevever, does ser as a conditica of 4
isestag operstlag 11 ceases that there aust be a state or S leoni plan.
8 II. CRIMIls There is as exemption for 7 compensatlag sensures.
O 33. Go utta It teos, but it aise goes on to speah 8 abent Cesaisies acties.
4 C1413313 43E133Es Right, but at ioast the 11 requireeest f or plass.
tt 33. SEAPats The bill aise regoires the BBC by 4 reie se establish a mechaatse to escetrage and assist, and I M thtak the verds were carefour chemes, to secourage and 4 assiot states to coeply with the standards prossigated bT M the BBC.
1F CSAI1343 4511358s Tha t is wha t t his is .
4 ft. 00LLRte Wou , we believe that this is sa
'O inhereat characteristic of the rule, and fo r the rea son s 3 Ladicated es the slide that nothia, ase4s to or shooid be Il demo te offset this.
5 Th e no rt slid e , pieese .
5 (Best slide.)
M CORRISSIDEtt MEIDRIts tacept be aware that 3 sometime dova the 11ae one one or another f acilities we ear
0 ColeIIS$10Il M I N I M 0 11 FlllAL AULE ON EMERGENCY Pet!PAAIONE$$
JUNE 14. IMO i
M IS$1El Mitlam y gg e ns gyg gggg63g
- 1) NGC 481CWRENCE' IN STATE 4 LOCAL P900AAM
!) 11RC/FDI4 M5P01Fl81 LIT!!S 4 SELAfl0NWIP
- 3) REQUIROENT FOR CAPSILITV POR 15 MIN. IIOTIFICATI0li 0F PUBLIC
- 4) IMM.EMENTATION SCNE8ULE
- 5) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERettNT 'VtTO POWEA'
- 6) FUN 0!ItG FOR STAfts & LOCAL 80VT5
- 7) ALTERNAT!Yt PROV!510N5 !N P90POMO Rit.E 1
l l
Reft &M Mrfk h i
e M FAILWit GF :DW GR LOCAL WVT M MycLep 4/M M AN AcetPTAalt EMAN#CY MAR fet Mt RIMWI COES ErftCTIVELT GLOW LICW61M MilM OF A PLANT ACas Cseems M wts asser - aqusus ctAarric4Tieu er cissaission's inimTI0es IN TWil mMAS STAFF RE5MIt$ft
. t Possit!LITY SMCIFICALLY KCOMitte IN SUPPLOWITAL INFO ACC0frANf!M hlA OTHER MTENTIAL STAft & LOCAL 'VETOS* ALMA 9f III57. I.E. EM NMITS EXPECTATION TNT STATE & LOCAL 00VT5 WILL ACT M570R11KY I P MAS NOT SCEN A PtotLEM IN ANY OF Oeno!M ktVitW W EER. PLAlellM POR OPER, REACT HAS GCNERALLY MDUCES TO A QUEST 10ll 0F FUnlHlIS NEVERTHELESS COWLt MCopf A 14 WOR P900LEM IN SOME FVTilRE LICEN5!M CASES
~~..m a.m--a - a .- - 1. =A - ~A- -- - .a_ a._A 4 .m - J -
l 5 -
E c . 2 3 g a
.E w . E i
i , ,
t
! 5
~
l a
- e$
m O l 8l l e - :
w E
= s !
t 2 ~
i l==E!
g=. _,
= ,
- i E-Is a .e i i lIyE -
e gf e
gg ;
- la,2 2 c s g5 a
g e .
l" 2
=
~
a
$!x 5
! :! g e 8 ! g i g 25 m al . W. .
j .<
-
- i 1
I .
i i
i l ,
i I,
t I
i Document 3: 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appropriation Authorization, Pub. L.96-295, 94 Stat. 780 (1980) i
PUBLIC LAW 96-295 (S. 562h June 30,1960 l . '
l AUTHORIZATION. APPROPRIATIONS--NUCI. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\
For 1,rgi Ista r History of this ad other Laws. see Talc 1,1w, I
Laws and Legislatis e History, et end vl finst t vinme
- * "..':,ll.':l2,tn' lll%'*L".10..t.'"s':. 's','1'l.7,,'C;':: 4
- 10. ',;* .",'.7l#. l.'. ! " ' "' " " " " ' " " ^ " ' "* -" ' d Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Re Nulur UnitedStates ofAmerica in Congress assembled, preeentativee of the y**mry ,
4, ,,,7l",, TITLE t-AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR anhonnum FISCAL YEAR 1980 Sec.101. (a) nere is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Comminston in accordance with the provisions or section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2017) and section 305 of the Energy Reorganiution Act of 1974 (42 U.S C. $rI5L for the flacal year 1980, the sum of $426,821,000, to remain avadable until expended. Of such total amount authorimd to be appropriate (
- 0) not more than $66,510,000, may be used for "Nucles, Resetor Regulation", of which an amount not to exceed
$1,000,000 is authorind to accelerate the effort in gas. cooled thermal reactor preapplication review; (2) not more than 842,440,000, may be used for "Inspection and i Enforcernent";of the total amount appropriated for this purpose 54,684,000 1
shall be available for support for 146 additionai I inspectore for the Resident Inspector program; (3) not more than $15,953,000, rosy be und for "Standards i Developrnent"; l (4) not more than $32,380,000, may be used for "Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards"; of the total amount appropri-sted for this purpose-(A) not lees than $60,000 shall be available only for the employment b the Commission of two qualified individuals to be assigned the Commission for implementation of the United States ternational Atomic Energy Agency Safe-
)
guards Treaty $enste:following ratification of such tre4ty by the United Statee (B) not less than 833,000 and sin additional punitions shall be included in the Division of Safeguards for the regulatory improvement of material control and accounting safeguards and the development of improved regulatory re for safeguarding the transportation of spent andfuel;quirements 4
l C not less than 89,675.000 shall be available for Nuclear Waste Disposal and Management activities, includ-ing support for five additional positions in the Division of Waste Management for implementation of the Uraniura Mill Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public 14*
95-604; 42 U.S C. 7901 and followingr, (5) not more than 8213,005,000, may be used for "Nuclear Regulatory Research", of which-l 94 STAT 780 .
l l
i l
June 30 NUCLEAR COMMISSION P.I $$-295 (A) an amount not to exceed $3,700,000 shall be available to accelerate the effort la gas cooled thermal reactor safety research;
@ an amount not to encoed 64.400,000 shall be available for implementation of the Improved Safety Systema Research plan required by asetion 205(f) of the Energy Reorianisation Act o(1974, as amended; and 42 L'5C 5845 (C) an amount not to exceed $6,700,000 shall be available for Nuclear Waste Research activities; (6) not more than 818,125,000, may be used for "Program Technical Sup rt"; of the total amount appropriated for this purpod, S4.23s,000 shall be available to the Omce of State Programa, including support for eight additional positions for training and assistance to State and local governments in radiological emergency response planning and operations and for review ofState plans:and .
(7) not more than 838,408,000 may be used for "Propam Direction and Administration"; of the total amount appropriated for this purpose, S400,000 shall be available for support of eight additional positions in the Division of Contracta, Office of Admin.
istration.
(b) No amount appropriated to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to subeection (al may be used for any purpose in excess of the amount expressly authorized to be appropriated therefore by paragrapha (1) through (7) of such subsection if such excess amount la greater than $500,000, nor may the amount avr.ilable from any arpropriation for any' ou specified in such paragraphs be reduced by more than 8A0.0( , u nless-(1) a period of 45 calendar days (not including any day in which either House of Congresa is not in session because of an adjourn.
ment of more than 3 calendar dap to e day certain or an adjournment sine die) has passed aner the receipt by the Com-mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of notice gwen by the Commission containing a full and complete statement of the action propoMd to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action,or (2) each such Committee has, before the expiration of such penod, transmitted to the Commission a written nottfication that there is no objection to the proposed action. '
(c) No amount authorued to be appropnated by this Act may be med by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to enter into any contract providing funds in excess of $50,000 encompassag research, study,or technical assistance on domestic safeguards matters except sa directed by the Commission by majonty vote, following receipt by !
the Commission of a recommen,dation from the Executive Director for Operations supporting the need for such contract.
i (d)No amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be '
used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commtssion to--
(1) place any new work or substantial modification to existing work with another Federal agency, or (2 contract for research services or roodify such contrset in an am)ount greater than 8500,000, unleen such plseement of work. '
contract or modiScation la approved by a Senior Contract Review Board, to be appointed by the Commission within staty days of the I 94 STAT, 781
c P.L M-295 1.AWS OF 96th CONG.-2nd SESS.
- Jun a '
l ;
i i
date of enactment of this Act. Such Board sh under the direction of the Commission. If the amount of placement, contreet, or modification is 81000,000 or more, e thereof shall be by majority vote of the Commission. p#.41 aNording l lag body approval in accordance with the subesetion, the ed' lace contract, or m l
i performed, and that alternative methods of ob]nated h cation antains a detailed dese ion o Including cornpetitive procurement have been considered. Ting Ptrformance Sec.102. During the fiscal year 1980, craceys received by 4 i
Nuclear programs roay Regulatory be retained andComm!ssion used for salarise forandthe ex cooperative nuclear r%
associated with those programs, notwithstanding the provuien ,,g section shall remsin 3617 of the avallable untilRensed expended.Statutee (31 U.S.C. 484). Such mouM Tru d m or
'N Ssc.103. During the fiscal year 1950, transfere of sums fren, salaries and expen.ses of the Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission ruy be made to other agencies of the United States Government for the performance of the work for which the appropriation is made and s such cases the sums so transferred may be merged with the ap, pre;n.
ation to which transferred.
Sec.104. Notwithstanding any other prosialon of this Act, e authority to make payments hereunder shall be effective eteept to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance is appropriation Acts.
Sec.105. No amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the Act may be used to grant any license, permit or other authoruatg or permission to arty person for the transportation to, or the interua, long term, or permanent storage of, spent nuclear fuel or high.!nel radaoactive waste on any territory or insular possession of the Unp44 States or the Trust Terntory of the Pacific Islands unless-(1) the President submits to the Conrrens a report on the trvtsfer at least 30 days before such transfer and on a day dunng w hich-( A) both Houses of the Congress are in session.or (B) either or both Houses are not in sessio/, beause o(an adjournment of three days or less to a day certain, or (2) the President determines that an emergency situstion exists w,th respect to such transfer and that it is in the natienal interest to make such transfer and the Previcent notifies the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate as soon as possible of such transfer.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the cleanup ud rehabilitation of Bikini and Eniwetok Atolls Sec.106. Of the amounts authorued to be appropriated pursuut to this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorued e4 directed to use such sums as may be necessary to develop a ptan for agency reeportse to accidenta at a utiliz,;. tion factlity licensed elet 42 ttsc 2133 11 " section 103 or section 104@ of the Atomic Energy Act of IH4 h plan required to be developed by this section shall be form arded tothe Congress on or before September 30,1980.
i Sec.107. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may te wd {
for the purpose of pronding for the licensing or appross] of py disposal of n uelear wastee in the oceans. l
. Relations Sec.108. (al Of the amounta authorized to be appropriated pm*
ant to this Act, the Nuclear ReguWory Commission ts authorued sad ,
, directed to use such sums as may be necessary to deuleP ed i
94 STAT. 782 I
\ \
l l
l l
June 30 NUCLEMI COhlallSSION P.L.96-295 Promulgate regulati'ona ectablishing demographic requirements for the siting of uttlintion facthties. Such regulations sha]l be promulhuna be'sud lated by the Commission after notice and opportunity for hearing in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code. For ~t'imunea corposes of this section, the term "utilization facility" means a f"*'s "
hetlig
'(b) Thelicensed under section 103 or 104@ of t' e Atomic Energy Act ,
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section shall
- rovide that no construction permit may be issued for a utiliation facility to which this section applies after the date of such promulga-tion unless the facility complies with the requirements set fotth m such regulations, except that regulations promulgated under this section shall not apply to any facility for which an application for a construction permit was Aled on or before October 1,1979.
,o The regulations promulgated pursuant to this section shall including maximum specify demographic plation density enteriadistribution and population for facility siting,for zones surrounding r, a facility without regard to any design, engineenng, or other differences among such facil4ies.
<dme regulations promulgated pursuant to this section shall take into account the feasibility of all actions outside the facility which may be necessary to protect public health and safety in the event of any accidental release of radioactive rnaterial from the facility which may endanger public health or safety. For purposes of this subsection, " Accida tal the term "accidental release" includes, but is riot limited to, each " *
- ootential accidental release of radioactive material which is required by the Commission to be taken into account for purposes of facility do .4n.
to The Comn ission shall provide information and recomtnenda. laformanon and tions to State and local land use planning authorities haung jurtsdic. "c'**'ad*t****
tion over the tones established under the regulations promulgated pursuant to this section and over areas beyond the zones which may be affected by a radioleccal emergency. The information and recom.
mendations provided under this subsection shall be designed to assist itth authonties in making State and local land ute decisions which may affect emergency planning in relation to utilia.ation facilities.
in Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide that the Commission shall have any authonty to preempt any State require-ment relating to land use or respecting the siting of any utiliation facihty, enept that no State or local land use or facility siting requirement relating to the same aspect of facility siting as a requirement established pursuant to this section shall have any force and effect unless such State or local requirement is identical to, or mere stnngent than, the requirensent promulgated pursuant to this section.
Ssc.109. (a) Punds authori ed to be appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct proceedings, and take other actions, oth respect to the issuance of an cperating lianse for a utiliation facility only if the Commission determines that-(1) there exista a State or local emergency preparedness plan which-(A) provides for responding to accidents at the facility concernedanj .
(B) as it applice to the facility concerned only, cotoplies mith the Commiuion's guidelines for such plans, or 94 STAT. 733
, y, .:
' T
\{t
.s 5' x) \ '
E,
\,
4
- o. .e -
1 b, s 4
(' '
(
N i ' s a .g ( \
, s s
.\
P.L ',\&-295 ' '
,0
, t l.AWS OF ', 96th CONG.-2nd SESS. '
i
-) ,. { _ -
i June 3I .( '\w, q i u, s
s ,
g, ,,
(2)in the asence of a pla whleh satisfies the requirement
' pare.gsph (1) there erists a Stat & local, or utility povides reaso,nable assurance th.t public' health nd a.Dlanh whie#
Lnot aMangered by operationf the fastility concerned.. safet7 is A determindlo
4g N made only M vultation c:asuhby the the DirectorCotuniaalon of h (1) m under par $ahedera
( / > gency Man t
ment A eracy. If,in any proce.eding for the issuance
'. i t t an operstb appher,i t, )! Man for a utilization facility to which this subsecti"
^ s
' , T amou acce thaCpdblic health W, safety is endangered b the /tdP' ji the Gimmimien si.al! sientif aM eday wrl provide the gr;plicant wi%y the risk to public health "t'tihutic ivl \
- fac*? " t re.;. sons fc stch deMrminaNn. For purposes of this section ea detailed si .tement o 42 Usc 21M.
sist section 103 or R4(b)of the Ataic Energy Act of 1954."ttilizaticn (tril# m 31 un ' s #
s W
RWn
\ 101ta), such sums ar.may Regulttory Commist,ian te--- , \
be n3essary Ni shall le used by
'\ d) establish by rule / N \ \
.5%
'3 3
' (/.i standards for Mte rarlyrictl e e c$
)
plans, de@ ped v, consultation with tSe Director of theertency \ respons
,, Federal Erue gens Management Agenq and other apro '
i priate agencies, whlch provide (i < the resp,rwse to a radiolog. ' '
teal emergency involving any utilization faciluy, ) L
(B)a rttirement thva a (i) the Commissiou m2) issue operating licenses for }
utilization that facilitief drily if'.he Commisstor. determines
',s L'
t(
s (1) there exisha State or k.dal radiological mer. ,
\
1 s Mency respuise pl.sn which pavides (c?JesMnding so my radiological emergene)1st the Qihty cr.o.
3 ;
( s ctrned and which complies wi b s,ncammi'sion's s#adards
.) I ' \
for such plans um%r subparagraph IAL '
@ in the absence of a plan which satisfies th, requh stnena ofJubclause (I), there ects a state, q local, ir utilih' plan which proudes rerasonable i assutance tha. public health ard safety ts not enth.ngered by operation of the facility concerned.
s l
us x b
, 1 (ii) any determination b't the Commission ur. der e i clause (D may be Made o.Q in consultation with the
,, 5)irector of the Feoeri Emergency Management
' sgen y and otheeappropste agencies,and (d a me:chanism to ecc,urart;and as:4t States to comply as espedit;ously as prn:MEAe Sith the standard < )G.nul- ',
s gated under subpars a hIM of this paragraph .
R**r= o,!a ,
(2) review all plans an[ot er preparations respectnhuch an s etner ',ency which have been made by each State in whicu there a , . 4 j
located a utilization facility or in which constructica of such a '
1 ~
' facility % been commenced and tq each State whrh may be ,, , s Fected b.s determined by the Commission) by any such n.
s ornergency, bow s co'Wm 1 (3) assess the adnusey of the plans and other preparsu. ens a,
- " * ' " -( reviewed under paragraph (2) and the ability of the States '
s,9-
^- involved to carry out emergency evacuations during an e=er. .
enureferred to in paragraph 0) and subm.it a report of such
.\
s ,
94 STAT, 704
'( .,
s s
s s m.
[]
i $, N
% \
t s
_s, J
June 30 NUCLEAR COMMISSION P.L.96-295 amansament to the appropriate committees of the Congrees within 6 months of the date of the enactment of this Act, (4) identify which, if any, of the States described in paragraph (2) do not have adequate plans and preparations for such an !
emergency and notify the Governor and other appro riate l authorities in each such State of the respects in which such lans I and preparations, if any do not conform to the guid lines promulgated under paragra, ph (1), and (5) submit a report to Congress containing (A) the results ofits actions under the preceding pmgraphs and (B)its recommenda-tions respecting any additional Federal statutory authority l
I which the Commission deems necessary to provide that adequate plans and preparations for such radiological emergencies are in efrect for each State described in paragraph (2).
(c)In carrying out its review and assessment under subsection ib)
(2) and (3) and in submitting its report under subsection (aX5), the Commission shall include a review and assessment, with respect to each utilization facility and each site for which a construction permit has been issued for such a facility, of the emergency response espability of State and local authorities and of the owner or operator (or proposed owner or operator) of such facility. Such review and assessment shall include a determination by the Commission of the maximum zone in the vicinity of each such facility for which evacuation of individuals is feasible at various different times corre-sponding to the representative warning times for various different ,
types of accidents.
Sec.110. (a) Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated pursu-ant to section 101(a), such sums as may be necessary shall be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop, submit to the Con-gress, and implement, as soon as practicable after notice and opportu-nity for public comment, a comprehensive plan for the systematic safety evaluation of all currently operating utilization facilities required to be licensed under section 103 or section 104(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 usc 2133 (b)The plan referred to in subsection (a) shall include-- 21st (1) the identification of each current rule and regulation compliance with which the Commission specifically determines to be of particular significance to the protection of the public health and safety; (2)a determination by the Commission of the extent to which each operating facility complies with each rule and regulation identified under paragraph (1) of this subsection, including an indication of where such compliance was achieved by use of Division 1 regulatory guides and staff technical positions and where compliance was achieved by equivalent rueans:
(3) a list of the generie safety issues set forth in NUREG 0410 (including categories A, B, C, and D) for which technical solutions have been developed; (4) a determination by the Commission of which technical solutions for generic safety issues identified in paragraph (3) of this subsection should be incorporated into the Commission's
' rules and regulations;and (5) a schedule for developing a technical solution to those generic safety issues listed in NUREG 0410 which have not yet been technically resolved.
- 94 STAT. 785 l
{
, i P.L 96-295 LAWS OF 96th CONG.-2nd SESS.
yune3g (c) Not later than 90 days from the date of enactment of .
this A t the to Commission carry shall out subsection (a). report to the Congress on the status of g"'ts TITLE II-AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT op 1954 42 Usc 2133.
l Sec. 201. (a) Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 "-
amended b-issued adding at the facility end un thereof the followinker this l
"f. Each ficense for a utilization new subsect 42 Usc 2134-section 104 b shall require as a condition thereof that in case g"**"7 accident which could result in an unplanned release of quantitie,"
fission establish.roducts in excess of allowable limits for normal operat "
ed by the Commission, the licensee shall immediatel, notify the Commission. Violation of the condition prescribed by't 42 Usc 223t subsection may, in the Commission's discretion, ds constitute grou for license revocation. In accordance with section 187 of this Act, the Commission shall promptly amend each license for a utilization i facility issued under this section or section 104 b. which is in effect on '
the date of enactment of this subsection to include the provisions required under this subsection.".
Sec. 202. (a) Chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 42 Usc 22s3. amended by adding the following new section at the end thereof' "Sec. 235. Paorterios or Nuct.rAn INSPECTORS.-
"a. Whoever kills any person who performs any inspectas which-
"(1) are related to any activity or facility licensed by the Commission, and
"(2) are carried out to satisfy requirements under this Act or 42 Usc 2133.
under any other Federal law governing the safety of utilization 2134- facilities required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b,or the safety of radioactive materials, shall be punished as provided under sections 1111 and lil2 of title 18, United States Code. The preceding sentence shall be applicable only if such person is killed while engaged in the performance of such inspection duties or on account of the performance of such duues.
"b. Whoever fon:ibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, inunu.
dates, or interferes with any person who performs inspectiora as described under subsection a. of this section, while such person a engaged in such inspection duties or on account of the performance of such duties, shall be punished as provided under section til of tit'e 18, United States Code.".
(b)The table of co, tents for chapter 18 of the Atomic Energy Act of 19M is amended by adding the following new item at the end thereof "Sec. 235. Protection of nuclear inspectors.".
42 Usc 22n Soc. 203. Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by striking out *'Whoever" and substituting:
"a. Whoever',
and by adding at the end thereof the followin .
"b. Anyindividualdirector, officer,or emp ee of a firm construct. .
Ing, or supplying the components of any uti tion facility required to be licensed under section 103 or 104 b. of this Act who by set of omission,in connection with such construction or supply, knowinsif and willfully violates or causes to be violated, any sectwn of this Act.
any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, or any licen8' condition, which violation resulta, or if undetected could have resulted, in a significant impairment of a basic component of such a 94 STAT. 786 4
i Document 4:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Emergency Planning.
45 Fed. Reg. 55,402-13 (August 19, 1980)
- n. 4 a me4c.a nepater / V ot, O. 104
< 19feday, Augual19s IM fjAles ARd R,sgnlalba , @
NUCt.AAA MEQUt.AT06y W Raeleagdation contalade COMMl884CN foBowingjlementat ents/tuggesGene" " .
r M.3 th
- t. In order to continue operstlena ce tot the proposed mahe .T 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 recelve an opersting license an is days after pubBeaticain b Federal "
appucant/lleensee wtU be required to' Registee. Duttap this comment period (In Emergency Planning january 1980) the Commisaloo submf t its emergency plana, as well as State and local conducted four regional worbhope with Aoam7t:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory response plana, governmental to NRC. b NRC wlDemergency State and local off!ciala, utility Commhdon, then make a finding as to whether the reptesentatives, and the pubtle to df scun the feaslbtlity of the various Acmc Final rule.- state of onsits and offsite emergency preparedness provides teasonable portions of the tuneisum W Nuclear Regulatory their impact, and probsed t proceduren amendments, assurance that adequate protective proposed for complying with their I Commission la upgrading its emergency measures can and will be taken in the pcovisions.% NRC used the planning regulations in ordst to usure event of a radiolegical emergency. N that adequate protective meseures can information from thne worbhops along NRC wtU base its Seding oc a review of . with the public comment lettats to and will be taken in the event of a the Federal Emergency Management radiclogical emergency. Nuclear power Agucy (FEMA) findings and develop the Saal rule (more than 200 plants and certain bther Ucensed comment lottare and the points made la determinations sa to whether State and two petitions for rulemaking were also facilities are required to submit their local emergency plans are adequate and considered).
emergency plans, together with the capable of being implemented and on emergency response plans of State and In addition to the above, on June 25, the NRC aiseesment as to whether the 1980, the Commission was briefed by local governments, to the Commission. Ucusu s/appucant s mergacy plane thro panels of pubuc commanhn on ne Commission and the Federal Energy are adequate and capabfe of being the rule, one each comprised of Mana implemmted. Nse issues may be planabment Agency adequacy. W wiu redew the raised amendment in NRC operating license representatives from the Industry, State and local governmenta, end pubuc also exianda emergency plantdng hearings, but a IBtA finding will Interest gtoupa Each panel raised constd rations to"Emergency Planning constitute a rebuttable presumptfon on important concerna regarding the final Zonas", and makes additional the cuestion of adequacy, dartBeadona, rule. On {u!y 3,1980, the Commisslon
- 2. kmergency planning cons!derations was briefed by its staRla resposse to smcm m Nonsber 3,1980" will be extecdeo to
- Emergency these panelt, including sevarsi Planning Zones," g Nots.-%e Nuclear Regulator 7 modificaticna to the proposed !!nals
- 3. Detailed emergency plan camission has subseted th!a ruk to the rules. MnaDy, on July 23,1980, at thg CaptroDer Genen) b rniew d the tuplementing proceudre: of Ucenseeef Snal Commiselon constderatfon of m,ese Mr
- ins relutrements in the ruk, pesuant applicant
- Mll be required to be I submitted to NRC for nyiew, and rules, the Comm!ssfon was briated by
- j N
- 4. Requirements in to CFR Part 50. the Ceceral Counsel an the substance of conversations with Congnesional star requirements of the ree becme eSewe tac.ludes a es dar period da the dainte - Appendix,8 are clanf ed and upgradad, members who were involved with crows for comptroun cenatalrwten He Background Uac. sst2(cXaly - -
{ ness of the flocal year 1980L NRCPub.Authorizaden L No. 96-3st - Act In hune 1279, the Nudeat Regulatory pg , m , , , m g "- Onnndssion began a formal no Ceneral Counsel advised b Mr. Mjchaal'l*.Ja=~h OfBec g re nsideratfon of b role of emergency Commission that the NRC final rules starvids Developinant; ifs. Nedear p!santog in ensuring the continued were consistent with that Act h Regulatory Comminloo, Washington, pr tection of the public health and Commission has relled on aD of the above informs tam in its consideration of D.C. 2255 (t*I'Ehone: 301-443-6906). safety in areas around nudear power- these final rules. In addition. the Nm mm On facilltfes. %e Commission began this reconsideration Ln recognition of the Commission directs that the transcripta September 19,1979 and on December 19, of these meetings shall be part of the 1979, the Commission pubUshed for need for more effective emergency planning and in reopense to the nG administra tive record in thf a rulemaking.
However, the transcripts have not been 75167) proposed (amendments to itspubuc comment acddant and to reports issued by 44 FR 54308 and 44 m reviewed for accuracy and. thenfore, emergency pMy regulations for responsible ofBen of government and are only an taformal record of the production and utilization facilldes, the NRC's Congressional oversight matters dfscussed.
committats.
. Extenalve comments were received. all After evaluating all public comment On December 19,1979. the Nudear iof which were evaluated and considered lettera received and au the information in developing the final rule. N Regulatory Commission pubushed to the obtained during the workshops as wou comm:nts received and the staff's ' Federal Registee M4 m 75167) proposed as additional reports such as the amendments to 10 CR part 50 and nalta tfon is contained in NUREC-0684. Presidentf al CommJssion and the NRC in addition, the NRC conducted four Appendix E to part 50 of its regulatfons. SpecialInquiry Croup Reports, the Regional Workshops to solldt Publication of these final rule changn la Commjaslon has decided to publish the comments: these comments are the Federal Register la not only related final rule changes desenbed below. t available la NUREC/CP-0011(April to the December 19,1979 proposed rule '
18 W changes but also incorporales the P " f Final Rule Changes proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 50 h Commission has decided to adopt ,
s i
'ceptes olM.' REC documents are avanaW st and 70(44 FR 54X6) published on a venion of the proposed rules slid!ar the ComrJulae's Pdtic Docuswet Rooca,1717 H September 19,1979,laterested persons to alternativs A desatbed in Secticne siru j r;wsshwjN
.a ce. '%"f ** were invited to submf t writter. 56.47 and 50.54 in the Federal Register i ation os current prkes may t=Ntainedwuhirroe,try Notica dated December 19,17*4 B4 m eens the UA Nuaeu iterdatory commfesion.. o c r65. Araseca PWt%. 75167), ae modif)ed in light of comments, satu %.aw. %e:e rules are cons! stent with the
I M 'b / ynt, 4 W 1 N MAW * "
wyyw.d5 cutilnad by PEMA appM" d D' "
operating Heense,wG be ma'"e%'3'e'4%"gh gr :*"""@7:n 'M andNRCin on ,y[
a2,ge the the that NRC con mehe abhfbdbs favor anted enfese resposee M M N b than sah a Snent as te wheeer as A aa*g*=
enm-ey tion of oneHe and o@ site state of onaf ts and offette ema nog ovide. ency wou licants for a constnrct}on permit be required to rubmit som re a s oen ble ,a s eurance,,that preadequa* ~P=vea===
te to g ,, gg9 protective meerures con and wul be aseurance that adequate protectfre Seedon n a Appenex i.
taken la the event of a redkloskal measmes can and wG be taken tn the emergency. In the cese of an operating event of a rediolo6fealemerseccy. Ratkoale foe the Maal Rules reactor, ifit is determined that there am ne NM wMase its findng u a De Cesnadu6an's fbel rules en teview of the FEMA findings and sudt deSciendes that a favorsble findbg le not warranted and if the NRC besed ce the s(g d8cance of edeqaate determbstions ae to whother Stata and empey pknsdng and prepednen deficiencies are not corrected within local4 emergency plans are adequate and e case edageete protec' Son of es months of that determination, the capable of DelS4 Implemented and on bile health and seq ft le dear, Commission wul determine the NRC assenacient as to erhethat the hoed ee te verbes omdal reporte expeditiously wbether the teactor applicant's/Ilcansee's emergency plana desenbed h the peoposed rae should be shut down or whether are some adequate and capable of bein4 g arid b puble record cour(44 M in pned other enforcec:ent action is appropriate, impleccented. In any NRC Uceaalas proceeding, a FEMA findng wul & Sema% that easite and eSeite pursuset to proc,rdures provided foe in emergeocy preparednese as we8 es to CPR 1200-2.20s. In any ca se where conalture a rebuttable presumption on efting and engineered derfsn the Commission bel! eves thal b publIcthe queetion of adaquacy. SpecificaDy:
s.Ano
[tures are needed to protect the hea health, safety, or Interest so requires, the Iseued un,perating Deense ,andwG notofbeb pubMc. As b sehty plant wul be required to shot down wmi,,,,, ,,.cted to the accident at immedia.fely (to CF1t 2.202(f), ses 5 findjng caneas a faverable NRC ovarall be made, nr,e idle telend. It became deer that U.SJC 558(c)k ~ 5. After April 1,1981, an operating be prekcf!em prodded by afthis and
- ne' standards that the NRC wulpluse mt may be equired to abet down iR d"md by to eberty led d$ sign feetsr in m u tng its datarndna tions 'under the se is determined that there are deficiendes -
rules are set fcrth in the (hal re 91stloa, such that a favorable NRC Sndia4 pectee meeseres debs course of Wherever posaih!a, these standardacannot may be made or la no inge an seddent. ne emident 100**d blend with othat amergency pie wartanted and the deme's are notclearly that ceslie cereB6cne tieF procedurea for nonnuclear eme cies corrected wnhin 4 months of that actione, even ithey do not cause preeently in existence. We : determinatiaa. signiSemet ofeite redloteste=T ' 1 ards are a restatament of baaia NRC and now 2. Emergency plannirgt cmsiders tions con,,,,, nee,. wilf affect thesrey the joini NRC-FD4A guldance to lkeaseea ruust be exjoeded se ' Emeripay yaikac 9 tete and local entt6ee reect to and io Stata and local governments. See Ptannlag Zones
- and protect the pub 6c froea any dangers NUREG4e64. FEMA-REP-1 "Criterts 3. Detaued c sergency plarmin8 eeeoda ted wtth the e sident ha order to for Preparation and Evaluation of implementing procedarts of both discherge e5betfrelyils ete+etory Radjologi<al Emer licensee and applicants for operatin8 and Preparednes gency Reepense Mata responefbiBties, b 8%=swi== ion arast la Support of Nuclear licemet Ctai De submitted to NRC,for inaw 64 pmper meone endprocedures revie w.
Power Ptanta for toterim Use and wtB be in place to steesa the cocoe of Comment." Qansary 1980),In dedding in addit 6on, the Commission is an accident endits potestiaf savedty, whether to pemdt reactor operation b revisteg to CFR Part 50, Appendix E, that NRC and other appropriate the face of some defideodes, the . "Emergency Plans for Production and authorittes and th Commission wul examine among other Utuitation Faci 5 ties,"la order7 to clanf . notMedand prompey,e that adequatepubtfc wG be factors whether the defidencies, are expand,andupgrade the Comraission't protective actfons b response to actt,al signif'tcant for the teactor in questies. emergency planning regulations. er anticipated cenditfoes can and wd wbetber adequate Latens compensatory Sectiona edodix E that are be taken.
actions have been or wul be taken expanded in de: no Commission's orgarde etstutes promptly, or whether other compelling 1. Specification of "Emergency Action provide it with a unique degree of reasons exist for reactce opersuon. In imels"(Sections IV.B and C) discretion in the execution of agency detarmining the sufficancy of "adequate 2. Dissemination to the pubik of besic functions. Siegel v. AEC,400 F.2d 778.
interim compensatory actjens" under emergency planning informadon 783 (D.C. Cir.19681 see Wesunghouse this rule, the Commisalon will een (Sect on IV.D) Electric Corp. v. MIC, 598 F.2d 759, 771 State plana, local plana, and licensee
- 3. Provisiona for the State and local Energy (Act of 1954 and the Entrg plans to determine wbether festures of governmental sothorities to have a one plan can compensate foe capabiljty for repid notification of the Reorganization Act of1974 confet broad deficjeJedes in anothat plan so that the publ!c during a serious reactoe regulatory functions on the Commission level of protection for the public health emergency, with a destgn ob and speedcally authorize it to and safety is adequa te. This completing the initial nortftca}ective of promulgate rules and regulatfens it Interpretation is coalstent with tho' tion within deems neccesary to fulfillits is minutes aner notmeatkn by the for Bscal yesi 1900, Pub.1. 96-38-rovisions ilcenace (Section of theIV.D)
NRC Authertzatfon tesponsibilities Act under the Acte,42 U.S.C.
- 4. A lleenset onalta technical eupport 12201(p)." Public Service Co. o/New The regulation containa the following ceater and a lleenies oeaf site Horopshire v. MtC. Sa2 F.2d 77, 82 (1sa three major changes from past practices: emergency opers tiona fa dllty (Section Ctr.) cert den /ed. a79 U.S.1046 (1778),
- 1. is ceder to continue operatima or to TVEl See 41 U.S.C. 21331a). Aa the Suprects tedeve an operating license, an 5. Provisfena for redundant Court stated almost 20 years ago, than ecmmunica tions ey etema (Section IVE) Atom!c Energy Act "clearly centemplates that the Comm!seion ball
55404 Federal Redster / Vol. 45, Nc.182 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulati ns by regulation set forth what the public proposed rule changes. ne following asfety requirements are as a prerequisite major issues have been rafsedIn the Commissfoo's disposition to grant such exemptions.
to the issuance of any license or permit comments received.
under the Act."PcwerReactor 5. De Commission. tn developing thfe aspe Development Ca v. International Union /me A.M Re& uKonmace e,,,,ctg,,
of g,,
the n,,
proposed g;,,,,,,rule, g,,, must
,, u of ElectricalRadio Machine Workers, an State andLocalRadiologicalPlans 387 U.S. 396. 404 (1961). Finally, it is also when tegulation was chatacterized by
- 1. FEMA is best suited to assess the the leaders of the agency by simple and clear that "Congress, when it enacted adequacy of State and local radiological very appropriate expressions ne
[42 U.S.C. 2236) . . . must have emergency planning and preparedness envisioned that licensing standards, process was to be "effective and and report any adverse findings to NRC especially in the areas of health and efficient." ne application of regulatory for assessment of the licensing authority was to be "finn. but fair."
safety regulation, would vary over time consequences of those findings. Regardless of the outcome of the as more was learned about the hazards 2. ne proposed rule fails to provide of generating nuclear energy. Insofar as objective standards for NRC "concurrenca" is sue. the Commission those standards became more must appreciate that alternative B is not concurrence. reconcurrence, and fair. It is not effectfve reguladen.
demanding. Congrese surely would have withdrawal of concurrence.
wanted the new standards,if the 3. In the absence of additional Is# De Public Ed##8'/oA Commission deemed it appropriate, to ststutory authority, the proposed rule Only Information required to inform apply to those nuclear facilities already frustrates Congressionallatent to the public about what to do in the event licensed." M. Pierce Utilities Authority preempt State and local government of a radiological emergency need be
- v. United Sta tes. 606 F.2d 986. 996 (D.C. Veto power over nuclear power plant disseminated. Dete should be Cir.1979). operatfore In response to and guided by the flexibility,in any particular case, as to
- 4. Procednres and standards for who will be ultimately responsible for various reports and public comments, a adjudicatws of emergency planning disseminating such information, well a:its own determinatlon on the dispute: are not adequately specified in significance of emergency preparedness. the proposed rule. Issue E. Lep/ Aufkity the Commission has therefore concluded that adequate emergency preparedness l##U' 8#f*'ff'UCY Il# #'^8 . 2##'8 1. A few commenters felt that NRC is an essential aspect la the protection (EPZs) had no authority to promulgate a ru e as the one proposed.
of the public health and safety. no 1. Regulatory basis for imposition of Commission recognizes there is a 2. Other comments were the nature the Emergency Planning Zone concept that NRC has statutory authority only possibility that the operation of some should be expressly stated in the reactors may be affected by thla rule Inside the limits of the plant site.
regulation. 3. Some commenters suggested that i
through inaction of State and local 2. Provisions regarding the plume governments or as inability to comply NRC and FEMA should seek additional expmre pathway EPZ abould provide a legislation to compel Sta te and local with these rules.%e Commission maximum planning distance of to Qiles.
believes that the potential restriction of governments to have emergency plans. J j plant operstion by State and local 3. References to NUREG-0396 should that is what la necessary, be deleted to avoid disputes over its officials is not significantly ddferent in mear'ing la licensing proceedings. Issue r; Schedule for Implementation kind or effect from the means already '
available under existing law to prohibit A ne schedule for Implementing the No proposed rule was considered to be reactor operation, such as roning and land use laws, certification of publje unrealistic and in some cases in conflict
- 1. Neither alternative is necessary with various State schedules already in convenience and necesalty, State because the Commission has sufficient existence. A sampling of the comments l financial and rate considerations-(10 authority to order a plant abut down for on the implementation schedule follows:
CFR 50.33(f. and Federal sefety ressons and should be prepared 1. The 180 days in the schedule is an environmentallaws. De Comtnission to exercise that authonty only on a insufficient amount of time to notes, however, that such considerations case.by case basis and when a generally relate to e one time decision accomplish tasks of this magnitude; the particular situation warrants such Federal government does not work with on siting, whereas this rule requires a action. such speed. States are bureaucracles periodic renewal of State and local 2. No case has been made by the commitments to emergency also; there is no reason to assume they Commission for the need for automatic can work faster. It took years of working preparedness. Relative to applytna thl shutdown, as would be required in rule in actual practice, however, the with States to get the plans that are l alterna tive B. and certainly no other presently concurred in. It is just Commission need not shut down a NRC regulations exist that would facility until ali factors have been insufficient time for new concurrences requite such action based on a concept and redew. Also, to get a job done thoroughly examined. De Commission as amorphous as "concurrence la State believes, based on the record created by and local emergency plans." within that time frame means a hurried the public tvorkshops, that State and job. rather than an acceptable and local officials as partners in this 3. De idea that the Commission might meaningful plan. grant an exemption to the rules that 2. De time provided is trLadequate for undertaling will endeavor to provide would permit continued operatJon l fully for public protection. States to acquire the hardware needed. I (under alternative B) ha s little States must go out for competitive bids Summary of Comments on Major fssues significance. primarily because 10 CFR hst as the Federal governroent does. l Part 50.12(a) already permJts the Between proces:Ing and accepting a bid l %e Commission apprec!ates the granting of exemptions, extensive public comments on thle and actual delivery of equlpreent,;t may
- 4. De process and procedures for take a year to get the hardware.ne important rule. In addition to the record obtaining such esemptions are not of the workshops, the NRC hae received State budgets years ahead; therefore,if defined. nor is there any policy a State or local government needs :nors over 200 comment letters on the Indication that would Indjcate the money, it may have to go to the l
1 t
Federal Resister / M g h 162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulatforts legislature N. 55405 public proc:e%!s is a time.ConsumdjH!cultfes associated with such a ~ ss that may not fit th* Federal schedule. T'9 ult, ment. 8. N basis for effective offstte response capabibtfes is a sound or 3. moreNRC andprovide plans and FEMA could n /ssua '"* **/rEme4ency Acuon h/e emergency preparedness prograin. Federal sup by January 1,1981. De Fed' ral ""* A Ucants,in cooperation with State asslitance)for port and cal governmental authorities he (fundtns development and of technleal State should be permitted the necessary , and local offsite capabullies should be did not think that NRC and FD(A flexjbiuty cangovernment to develop emergency action moves slowly. Commentere incorporated into FEMA's preparedness program for all emergencies. frame scheduled, if de Federalreview aU for level criteria app opriate thethe plans in uestfon. subject to NRC apffaval fac111ty within the time 7,,y, y, g,,,,f government cannot meet its schedule' Inf exjble NRC emergency action level why oc how should the Statest ne States support Federal oversight
- 4. Funding uld standards are not necessary.
b and guldance in the development of by State and al gover /ssue/r Trainin# ffsite resp nse capabilities. However, o the deadline. it was suggested that the many States feel the confusion and Commission use H. Rept. #s6-413 1. Mandatory provision for training local service personnel and local news uncertainty in planning requirements "Emergency P!anning U.S. Nuclear medja persons is outside of NRC's foUowing Three Mile Island la not a Power Plants: Nuclear Regulatory proper environment in which to develop Commission Overstght." f"or the time jurisdiction and is not necessary to effective capabilities nor does it serve frame rather than that in the proposed protect the public health and safety, rule or use a sliding. scale time frame 2. Pubue participation in dn!!s or the best interests of their citizens.no critiques thereof should not be required, development of effective nuclear facibty since States are at various stages of incident response capabilities mil compteting their emergency plans. 3. ne provision regarding formal require close coordination and cntiques should be clanfled to mean the Issue Cr /mpact o/PreposedRule cooperation among responsible Federal licensee is respormble for developing agencies. State government, and the
- 1. De proposed regulations were and conducting such criuques.
- 4. Deruutive performance criteria for nuclear industry. An orderly and considered by some commenters as comprehensive approach to this effort unfair to utibues because it was feltby evaluatJon of dnlls should be developed makes it necessary that onsite they place the utilities in the politjeal tne licensee, subject to NRC approval, responsibilities be clearly associated and financial role that FEMA should be with NRC and the nuclear industry assuming. NRC is seen as in effect Issue & /mplementing Procedures while deferring offsite responsibiljtfes to g2ving State and local govemments veto ' State government with appropriate over the operation of nuclear plants. it NRC review of implementing FEMA oversight and assistance, was questioned whether this was an procedures la only necessary 1: apaise the NRC staff of the detada of the plana peutions in addJtion to these comments, two intent of the rule,la addition. it was felt for use by the NRC d for rulems that utilities, their customers, and their were filed in rtference to the p shareholders should not be penalized by an actual emergency,uring the course of rule. n ese were treated as pu e comments rather a shutdown with a resulting financial f,#"' t,. Mdi## than petitions and were considered la burden) beca(use of aueged deficiencies developing the final rule.
or lack of cooperation by State and loca] 1. Nuclear facilities, although located officials. in one governmental tax jurisdiction and no Commission has placed the taxed by that jurisdJction, affect other planning objectives from NUREC4654.
- 2. It was suggested that NRC's Offica lurisdictions that must bear immediateand FT.MA-REP-1 "Criteria for Preparation of Inspection and Enforcement conduct Evaluation of Radiological and long. term planning costa mthout the reviews of the State and local Emergency Response Plans and governmental emergency response plana having access to taxes from de facility.in Support of Nuclear Preparedness in order to ensure protnpt effective. and 2. As the radfua uf planning consistent implementation of the requirementa becomes greaJer, few Power Plants for Interim Use and proposed regulations, facdides are the concem of a alngle Comment." january 1980, into the final county. ne planning radius often regula tions. Comments received
- 3. One commenter noted that the conceming NUREG-0654 were available pubbe should be made aware of the encompasses county Unes. State lines.
and in some instances. international In des eloping the final regulatiert. ne issue of intermediate and lon boundaries, impacts of plant shutdowns. g term Commission notes that the planning Specific 4Uy people should be informed 3. As new regulations are generated to objecuves in NUREG-0854 were largely of the possibiuty of"brownoule." cost oversee the nuclear industry and old drawm from NUREG-75/m. "Cuide and ones espanded, there is an immediate Checklist for Development and increases to the consumer due to Evaluation of State and local securing alternative energy sources, and need to address fixed nuclear facdity the health and safety factors associated planning at su levels of government. Covemment Radiological Emergency eeginning at the lowest and going to the Response Plans in Support of Fixed with those attemative sources. highest. AH levels of government need Nuclear Facihties."(December 1.1974)
/ssu2N Pub //cNok//colion and Supplement 1 thereto dated March access to immediate additional funds to15,1977, which have been in use for
- 1. Ultimate responsibility for pubile upgrade their response capabi!Jty.
some time. notification of a radiological emergency 4. It is well understood that the must be placed on State and local consumer ultimately must pay the price ne approximately 60 public. comment govemment, for planning. regardless of the levella letters received on NURECroG54 were
- 2. ne Niieen minute"public government at which costs are incurred. not critical of the proposed planning I
notification rule is without scientille it becomes a matter of how the objectives. The Commission also actes i lusuficadon. fails to differentjata consumer ml! be taxed, who wt!1 that at the May 1.1980 ACRS meeting. bstween areas close in and further away adminJster the tax receipts, and what lathe AtomicIndustrialForum from the site, and ignores the technical the most effecuve manner in whJch representauve to encouraged the use of the address the problem. planning objecuves from NUREG-0654 In the final regulations In order to 1 l l l
l 554W Federal Repster / Vol. 45, No.1st / Tue, day, August 19, 1988 / Ru!ss and 41stfas reduce ambiguf ty and provide specif} city capability of implementa tion of Stste to the anal reguladon. and lonese ifmes to r, lease signincast and local plans. Based on b above, b Commhafon amounts of actirity in many ocesarios).
- 4. To make decialons with regard to Guidance regarding the radjoncetides to has dadded to modify the proposed rul, theoverall state of emergency changes in the areas discaued in be considered in plarning is set forth la preparedness (i.e, Integration of the NUREC-039tk EPA 520/1-7S-018, paragraphs I through X below, ucensee's emergency preparedness as "Planning Beslo foe b Development of determined by the NRC and of the L FEMA /NRC RelationshlP State / local governments as determined State and Imal Covemment In issuing this rule. NRC recognizas Radiological Emergency Reepense Plans by FEMA and tsviewed by NRC) and in Support of Light Water Nucleat the significant responsibilldee assigned iseuance of operating licenses or to FEMA. by Executive Order 12144 on Power Plants," December 197s.
shutdown of operating reactors. July 15,1979, to coordinate the in addition. FEMA has prepared a W, Radmk fdtomadne chosen emergency planning functions of proposed rule regarding "Review and la a few areas of the proposed rule, executJve agencies. In view of FEMA's Approval of State Radiological the Commission identified two new role, NRC tgreed on September 11. Emergency Plans and Preparedness(44 altematives that it was considering. 1979, that FEMA should henceforth chair FR 42342, dated June 24,1980). Many public comments were received the Federallateragency Centra) According to the proposed EMA rule, Coordinating Committee for on these alternaunr. based on due EMA will approve State and local consideration of au comrnents received Radlological Ernergency Response emergency plans and preparedness, as well as the djecussions presented Planning and Preparedness (FICCC). On where appropriate, based upon its daring the workshops. the Commission Decembee 7,1979, the President issued a findings and determinarfons with has determined which of each pair of directive entgning FEMA lead respect to the adequacy of Sate and alternedves to retain in the final rule. responsibility for offsite emergency local plans and the capabilf tfes of State In Sections 50.47 and 50.54 (s and (t), preparedness around nuclear facdities, and local governments to effec'Jvely the alternatives dealth with con)ditio The NRC and EMA immediately implement these plan.s and the 1:suance of an operating license or initiated negotlatlocs for a preparedness measures. Dese firdngs continued operatfoe of a nuclear power Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and determinations will be provided to plant on the exletence of State and local that lays out the agencies
- roles and the NRC for use in its licensing process, govemment emergency response plans
$p bi$tfes$ tis gn ed that the , mugecy Planning Zm Cacept he tween Ite att es A and B MOU, which became effective January ne Commission notes that the in these sections wes that, under 14.19ea supersedes some as taof Mgulatory basis for adoption of the alternetfn A b proposed rule muld previous agreements. Spec y the Emergency Plamiing Zone (EPZ) concept require a determinatf on by NRC on l MOU ldenafies FWA reeponsibilities is the Commhslon's decision to have a issuing a !! cense or permf tting continued with respect to emergency preparednesa cmewaun mugeng plannlng poHey opueda d plants la thou cam whue 1 as they reiste to NRC as the following: In addition to the conservatiem inherent relevant State and local emergency !
- 1. To mab lbd%s ud in the defense.In-depth philosophy. This reeponse plans had not received NRC deter:rJnations as to whether Stats and p licy was endorsed by the Commission concurrence. Denial of a license of W " l"' " de 8-la a Polley statement published on shutdown of a reactor would not follow
- 2. T "I Fd[t S ate ud I October 23.1979 (44 m e1123). At that automadcally la every ca se. Under emergency plans are capable of being tim 1 the Commission stated that two alternative B, shutdown of the reactor implemented (e 3, adequacy and Emergency pienning Zones (EPZs) would be required automatically tf the maintmance d procedes, training- should be establjshed around each li ht.
appropriate State and local emergency resources, staffins levels and water nucleat power plant. ne EPZ or response plans had not received NRG qualification, and equipment). abborne expoeun has a radius of about concunence within the presenbed time
- 3. To assa.me responsibility for 10 milee; thrEPZ for contaminated food periods unless an esemption is granted.
and water has a radjus of about 50 emergency preparedness training of After consideration of the pu'elic State and local officials, miles. Predetermined protective action plans are needed for the EPZs. ne record and on the recommendation ofits i
- 4. To develop and issue an updated staff, the Comminion has chosen a test series ofinteragency assignments that exact she and shape of each EPZ will be for Sections 50.47 and 50 54 (s) and (t) delineate respective agency capabilltf ee decided by emergency planning officials that is similst to, but less testnctive l and responsibilities and defin* after they coulder the specific than, alternatsee A in the proposed rule.
procedures for coordination and conditions at each site. nese distances Rather than providing for the shutdown direction for emergency planning and are considered large enough to provide a of the reactor as tha e!y enforcen ent ponse, response base that would support action and prescribing spede SpecificaDy, the NRC respoulbilitie a activity outside the planning zone preconditions for the shutdowri ? cme 4
" should this ever be needed. the final rule makea clear that for In th O III. Position on P!anning Baslo for Small mugucy planning n2fo, Me aU oen Ught Watee Ructors and Ft. St. Vrain ,
- 1. To assesa licemee emergency plane for adegacy, ','j{Ctb '
f ed un ' ne Commlasion has concluded that poss ble en.forcement a*ctions and many
- 2. To verify that I! censes emergency plans are adequately implemented (e g, the operators of smalllight. water-cooled factors should be considered in -
power reactors (less than 250 MWt) and adequacy and maintenance of determining whether it is an appropnate the Ft. St. Vraln gas. cooled reactor may action in a given case. His Commission -proceduree, training, resources, staffing establish smaller planning zones whlch levels s'2d qualifications, and will be evalosted on a case.by case choice la constatent with most of the equipment). comments received frota State and local buts. This conclusion is based on the
- 3. To review the FEMA finding and tower wential hasard fnnn these
~ _
determination on the adequscy stid .s swam v tc e u.a. cmamme fs 'let (lowet radlonuclide laventory commece i
..v.- -- -
.,y -., - _ _ - r-
Federal Resister / Vol 45, No, los / heeday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulatisns 554W genenseents andis consistent with b the Ucensee emersency ruponse plana, beste for choice of notification provialons of Section100 of the NRC After thue two determinations have capability requinments for offette nocalyear1980 Authortsation Act. bon made NRC will make a finding in authorides and for the pubuc. Alternative B was seen by some of the the Ucensing process as to the overall Emergency plans must be developed commentare as potentf ally causing and lategrated state of prepandness. that will have the flexibility to ensure unnecessardy harsh economic and It was pointed out to the Commission response to a wide spectrum of social consequences to State and local at the workshope and la public co governments, utilities, and the public. letters that the term "concurrence"mment was accidents.nis wide spectrum of potential accidents also reflects on the State and local governments that are confusing and ambiguous. Also, thm directly involved in implementing was a great deal of misunderstandina spMak un oMe detu lanning objectives of the rule strongly with the use of the term becaun,la tle notificadon capability.no un of this avor altemative A since it provides for past, the obtaining of NRC notification capability wiu range from tmmedlate notif! cation of the public a cooperative effort with State and local "concurrence in State emergency governments to reflect their concems response plans was voluntary on behalf (within 15 minutes) to usten to and destres la these rules. n!s cholce la of the States and not a ngulatory E designated redjo and television responsive to that effort. In addition, the requirement in the !! censing process, stadone,2 h an M me h industry strongly supported alternative Predously too, "concurrence" was thm !s sdstadal he avaUab for A as being the more workable of the two statewide rather than site. specific, the State and local govemmental alternatives, of!1clate to make a Judgment whether or In Appendix F. Sectfons II.C and III, E homuk Notification , not to activate the put)l.c actificatfon alternative A would require an ne requirement for the capability for systent appucant/Ucensee to outline ", , , notification of the pubuc within 15 Any accident involving severe fuel corrective measures to prevent damage minutes after the State / local authorities degradation or core melt that resulta la to onsite and offsite property," as well have been notified by the licensee has significant Inventories of fission as protective measures for the pubuc. been expanded and clarifled. It also has products in the containment would Alterna tive B addnsses only protective been removed as a footnote and placed warrant immediate public notification measures for the public heefth and in the body of Appendix E. He and consideration, based on the safety. He Commission has chosen implementation schedule for this partfeular circumstances, of appropriate alternative B because public health and requirement has been extended to July 1, protective action because of the safety abould take clear precedence 1981.nis extension of time has been potential forleakage of the containment over actions to protect property, adopted because most State and local building. In addition, the warning time ' Measures to protect property can be govemments identified to the available for the public to tale action taken on an ad hoc basis as resources Commission the dafficulty in procurin8 may be substantially less than the total become available after en accident. hardware, watracting for instaus tion, time between the original inJtf ating In Appendix E, under Tralning, and developing procedures for operating event and the time at which significant alternative A would provide for a joint the systems used to implement this Ucensee, Federal, State, and local radioactive releases take place. requirement. govemment exercise every 3 years, Specincadon of particulu tims as na Commission is aware that various design objectives for notification of whereas altemative B would provide for commenters,largely from the industry, these exercises to be performed every 5 have objected to the nature of the 15 offsite authorities and the public are a years at each site.no Commission has minute notification requiremen't. mans of ensudng that a sysum wul be chosen alternative B because the indicating that it may be both arbitrary in place the capa% to c4 h Commission is satieBed that the provision that these exercises be and unworkable. Among the possible alternatives to [ublic to to stening seek further information predesignated radio or by ) performed every 5 years for each site this requirement are a longer television stations. De Commission will aUow for an adequate level of notification time, a notification time that recognizes that not every individual , preparedness among Federal eme eney varies with distance from the facihty, or would necessarily be reached by the j response agendes. In addition, un)er no specified time. In determtrdng what actualoperation of such a system under these regulations. each licensee le that criterion should be, e line must be au conditions of system use. However, ) required to exercise annuaUy with local drawn somewhere, and the Commission the Commission believes that provision governmental authorities. Furthermore, believes that providing as much time as of a general alerting system will Federal emergency response agencies practicable for the taking of protective si ' cantly improve the capability for may have difBeulty supporting exerdses action la in the laterest of public health t protective actions in the event of every 3 years for all of the nuclear and safety. no Commission recognizes an emergency.no reduedon of facilitfee that would be required to that this requirement may prdsent a notification times from the severs] hours l' comply with these rule changes. signincant financial impact and that the required for street by street notification } techn! cal bas!s for this tequirement is to minute: wiu significantly increase the V. Defla! tion of Plan Approval Procese l not without dispute. Moreover, there options available as protective actions ne term "concurrence" has been may never be an secident requiring under severe accident conditions. nese deleted from the proposed regulations u Ing the 15 minute notification actions could laclude staying indoors in a.nd replaced with reference to the capability. However, the essentf al the case of a release that hat already actual procedure and standards that rationale behind emergency planning la occurred or a precautionary evacuation l NRC and FEMA have agreed upon and to provide additional assurance for the la the case of a potentf al telease thought ! I are implementing. According to the pubue protection even during such as to be a few boats away. Acddents that l agreed upon procedure. FEMA will unexpected event. De 15-minute do not result la core melt may also make a finding and determination as to I notification capabtury requirement is cause relatively quick releases for which i i the adequacy of State and local whoUy consistent with that rationale. protective actions, at least for the public l I gevernment emergeacy response plans. no Commleston recognizes that no in the immediate plant vicinity, are ne NRC will determine the adequacy of single acddent scenario should form the desirable. l I 1 l J
D ogs pednest Register / Vol C. Na las / Tw r. Atene 1 Mess / heme,paWeeek Gonne semanente acetoed en ese someons exist for senator operuelsac - ese64sgan opmeettag thdee'6miefec proposed rule edvocated the use d a Fineop, passoast to 1805 2 aosqr), tbs thatbeve amind an enumsee ataged nouscatem aystem wish guick Cemunieslan may,la r6ase the Sasas pena at timet bety unn , ,,, no nw=#wn required only near the plag. ef === stances, make rder the Commaiselos has detsame ,d NComadesion beBeves eat the Immadiately e6edive, which could under the af tede in to CHL Peat 61 b capab(Iny for guidi modeostles withis reenk to tamdiste plaat sh=4 dows an erwtr== annal trapact statsenent g the enare plane exposen smargency subtect to a later hearing, the as-d==se to to TR Part 50 and-plaudng none should be provided but APyendtx Ithesed le not required. nse recognizes afiet oosse pleanere may wish ggg determdnaties le based on to have b option of selectively in view of the regdesments in these "Envi=====*al Assesernest for Final accusting pan of the system during as rule 4 enp== regarding the actions W be Ganges le to CFR Part se and , aetual ruponse. Plannere should taken in 6 evoet Ststo and local App ==dh E d to CHL Part Stk canfully consider the impact d the government planning and preparedness Emmergency Pisanks Requirementa for added decisione that offsits authertties an er bomms inadequeta, a atury may Nts: lear Power Planas" (M a re-oess, would naed to make and the desirability have an tacanthe. based on its own seuf tune iseok Comusante ce b Tr A of astehl'ahing an official Interest as weH as its respoastbdity to Negattre Dedatation Ptoding of No l communication link to aD residents in provide power, to aseist in providing Signdicant Impace (e5 FR 3913, }amuary l the plume exposure emersency planning nianpome. tiesas of eqaspment, or other 21 toer4 were conshdered in the zoom when determining whether to plan resources that b State and local preparation of NURECA683, for a staged notification capabfUty, governments may need but are Parsmant to the Akusde Eurgy Act of themaalves unable to provide. %e 1954, se assoded, the Emesgy M Data dules and Oee' Com:sissica behoves that b view d the. Reorganisation Act of1874, as amended. l C President's Statement of December 7 and Seattoes sat and 553 ed Title S of the Prior to 6e petdicaties d these ters, giving FD4A the lesd role tn Uudted States Code, nosce le hereby amendmee ta, two guidance documente offatre plancing and greparednesa, the gium that to delkrutng amecdments to v.are pubtiebed for pubue comuneet and goestica d whothat the NRC should or Tt6e la Chapter I. Code eiFederal laterim use. Noe an NURECA610, could require a attkty to centrQrets to Regashma Parte as sad 73, are "Dran Emergency Action Level the expensee incurred by State andlocal pubbubed as a dar===t subject to Guidellass for NA Power Plants," governa)este na upgreding and .=a are j (Seg@u ber 19791 and NUltECAs54/ maintalstag btr etnerpacy plaarlag FEhdA-REP-1. "CrDurf a int Piepara t}on and s (and af it le to be. Part 80-Oesseste Ucenslag of , and Evajsation of Radialcqdcal req the rnechance for doing so) Le Prodection ased UtiEastion Fac48 ties Eaiargsacy Respoon Pleas ed beyond the scope d the psesent rule Prepasedaeos ta Support of Nuclear change. k should be noted. hoenwea 1 ParagraphIg dSecdon 50.33 te Power Planta for lateda Use and revised to read ae fo!!aare: that ang direct inadtag of Stan er toc ) r^r- m ent." Dassary 1980). It is expected governanente acidy lor emneryeccy l esJs canesses of appeteeces; poneral that versions of thou M% preparednese purposes by the Federal hformedium, revtand os the baals ef puh!]c renmanto enersment would come trough FWu(A. * * * *
- recalved, wfD be 14:ued to assist in (3)If the app 8catien le for se g%
de5ning acceptable lavals of opereerg bcause for a anclear power preparednaas 14 meet this Boal On an ===i basis, aB r=merds! reactor, se oppseest shall esbruft regulatloa. In the Laterim, these andeer poorer fac:htime wdlbe requited radlological emer3<ecy twponse plane documents should con 5cus to be used by NRC to exercise their pinas: thus of State andlocal governmeetal entitiee as guldancs. ex=rha should lavohne exerdsing b la b t>mited Stews that are 5,4o0y or l VE Hur6 Prandares Used in *Ppropria te local pner-w plane la partiaDy wichta &e pts:se exposure ' 3 euyp rt cd thsee faart= The Stata Im W W N w W pathway Emeegency MannMs Zone l may chasse to Immit its par 6dpation ta (EPZ)', so we8 as the piens of Srees Should the NRC befleve that &e exardsee at inces6es other than the - governenents whel}y or par teh within overall state of rmersecey Preparednees fasGty lsiasi chceen for as annsal a ( the intestion pethway EFZ.8 GenersUy. ; et and around a lleensed fedli lesoch e*-4=d=j af he Stais plan- b lume axyeeure path EPZ for that there to eome goestfoo thera Beci 5 tate and approprisie bcal nue ear power reactors she conslet of i fed!)ty shoold be permitted te continse gover===# shall annaally ce=dme sa ' to operste, the Coatminloo arey leeue an aree about to adles (16 km)in endlus exardse )aindy with a commerdal ' and the ingestion pathway EFZ eball an order to the Heeeeee to obow cause, nuclear power fadlity. Howe ser, Ststas consist of an etee about 50 cifles (80 k:n) persuant to 10 CFR 2.N2, why the plant with more than can fadhty (ettej shaX in radlue. W exact etn and a should not be obst downMble issue may schedole eneidaes such that sech conEguretion of the EPZe sunounding e arise, for example,if NRC flade e Individual fadlity (sjts) is axards+d in articular nucle at pcwer reactor ib all significant deAdency in a liceosee plan coniondica with the Staae and e determined in relation to the local or in the overaD atato of emergency appropriate local g*ernment plans not emergency response needs and preparednen. less than once eve / 3 years for sitas K the NRC deddes to is:se an order to with the plane expsrure pabway EPZ 'ruem r P.re.e r$s mai es e=md show cause, it wtD provide the licensu partisHy or whol y within the State, and to Nuitsc.cne, trA semna, wa4 cm the opportunjty to demonstrate to the Nn=iasion s :atf4 faction, for aumple,' not few than once every 3 yeare for estas with the ingestian expmure pathwe7 ggt %S[wggce I of ushi.witu tex 9u Pone P.an on==$= thai the a d de8cfeccie are not EPZ partiaDy or whour with.tn the Stats. t r a, significant the reactor in questice, The State shall choose. on a rotational =7 **
- 82 w orhether edequate latertn corspensating baats the ette(s) at which the esqulred y'id es 8m e sad taud
'gQ$ "*j*$,a actJoas have been or win be taken anac al exordse(s) is to be cceductedt , pn,a, %,mw ,,r,- g, w , .s.,
procoptly, or whether other cocapelling priority shall be girse to new factittiu m -~-s l l
- - _ - _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ - . - . _ . - . _ _ . _ _ - -l
% Register / Vol.'43, h tad %+9 O M finales and.Residanett 3ses capsbenes se dreded sed (39 Aempsmieues ser regeserfag and naabikhed for emergmasy esenhere, &
con 9%ons a8 d'm SrePh y; topogrepby efrectfvoly estet aselesaase ruources hee, base essen.
- for sontrolling r=nghi land chan m to exposures shalllocinde expoews juriedict!onfAEne of the accommodate Sate localstaff at guidelines consistent with EPA EPZa also me be determined on a ce,e. the licassee e soar.elte Easergency Emergency Worker and IJfeseving by-case basis for gas-oooled reactors Opwahas Fadby have been made. Achty Protecdw Acdom Cub and for ructors with an esthorhed and other organhedene espeble of (12) Arrangments are made for Power fewt leu than 250 MW thermet augmenung te been ident10ed. planned ruponse ha ve medleal serhe fonoataminated
%e plena for the ingestion pathway 6 lured bdividoals.
sbau focus on such setfoca as are (4) A standard etnergency (13) Censrul plana for recovery and aFpropriate to protect the food ingastion cleHtOca$ed add aCliog level sCbeB8. reentry SM deMioPed. pathway, the bases of which inchde iscibry
- 2. A cew I 50.47 is added. system and sesent parameters,is la (14) Periodic exarcises are (w1Ji be) conduded to eyelsate mejor portions of I 50.47 EmwTency piane. use by b neckar factiny llaannee, and energency ruppen capabthun.
State and local response placs emB for period!c drills an (will be) conducted to ('s)(1) No opersting license for a reHance on taformation provided by I nudear power reactor wiU be issued develop and maintain key skiMa, and facil ty licensees for determinations of unleas a finding is made by NRC that the mWmurs initialoffeHe MsPme deficiendes Idectified as a resuh of state of onsjte and offaite emergency measuree- exerdees or drt!!s are (will be) preparedness provides ressonsble corrected. (5) Procedees have been established (15) Red)ological emergency reeponse ! assurance that adequate protectiv, for notiacatica, by the licensee, of State c:easure: can and wid be taken in the and local resposee orgsafsatsoon and fw training is provided to those who asay event of a radiological emergency. notiBea tf on of emergency persomoel by be caDed on to neM la en emergency. (2) ne NRC wiU base its finding on a aU orgardsstions; the metes t of laitial (19) Reepoestbilities for plan nview of the Federal Emergency and foSony musages to response d.dywint and review and for Management Agency (EMA) findings organisatsoes'and the public has been distribution of eenergency plane an and determinations as to wbetber State estaashed W sneans to pmide each eetsbushed, sad planners an propdy , trained. ' and local emergency plans are adequate noti 5cathes and chee inetract!ce to the and capable of being implemented, and Populace withh b phane enceses (c)(1) Fai}ere to meet the etandirds set on the NRC as Jement as to whether **F
- 7 PS*D"lDE Zd"* ha " forth in paragraph (b) of this subesctico )
the applJeant's onsite emergency plans ' mey resuh in the Comedsslon deokning are adequata and capable of being (,") gee prompt to tasue an Operating IJeense; benevee. lmplec> acted. In any NRC IIcensing CC5208fC8d888 88286 priadpad the appDeant will beve ~an opporturdty !' proceeding, a FEMA finding will ons W to denwastreto b the eatisfaetion of the constitute a rebuttable Pe
,j Commlaston tret def!cjendes in the question of adequacy presumption o, ,
on,a g(y) g plans a.n not eigedScant for the plant to (b) ne onalte and offsite emergency, by p wW en W need and wkt w tWr queetton, compensating not adequate toterim sedoes have been er will response plans for nudear power t meet the foDowing initial acdons abould be is as be taken puerydy, er bt tbm an
,m, g e,gg obe compel!!ng reuona to permit plant (1) Primary respecaibilltfes fo' stance and r-e opera tioe, emergency ruponse by the nuclear indoors), the prindpal pota to of'contred (r) Cenersfy, tk plane expam facility licensee and by State and local with b news media lar dfseemieation pathway EPE for nudear power plants organizations within the Emergency of bloeiaasan dwhg an emergency shall consist of an area about to mfles Planning Zones have been assignad, tha findadhg the physicallocation or (to km)in radhrs and the ingestfon emergeocy responsibilities of ths loca W e M hs hd b advance, pathway EPZ rhaR consist of an eres various supporting organlutions have and F-J __ _ lor coorenated abcet 50 miles (80 km)in redles. De l been specifically established, and uch disavuakaakon of Woemation to the exact size and configurstien of the E7Ze pblic an essaMahad. surrounding a particular nuclear power prindpal response organization hee siaff to respond and to augment its initial (8) Adava+= amargency fad 11tf es and reactor shall be determined in relation response on a continuous baaja. eq9aa' to support tk en.ergency to loc 2] emergency response needs and j response an provided and maintained. capab(Utfee as they are affected by such (2) On. shift facaDry Ucensee l (9) Adequata methods, tystems, and cooditions as demogrepby, topograpby.
responsibilities for emergency tesponse I equlpment for aseesetag and monitoring land characteristica, accese routes, and are unambiguously defined, adequate actual or tial offalte consequences jurisdf etfonal boundaries. Me size of the ataffing to provide lattial facility ofara acddent tesponse in key functional emergency condition EPZs also may be determined on a esse-are la nee, areas is maintained at au times, timely by case beals for gas-cooled nucfear sugmentation of response capabilltfee la have )been danloped for the reactors (10 plume and for A reactors rangewith of an protective actio available and the interfaces among authorized powerlevelless than 250 various onsite response activitiee and exposure pathway EpZ for emergency MW thermal. De plans for the ingestion workers and b public. Gujdelinn for pathway shall focus on such ectierta a e offsite support and response actfvities the choice of protective actions during are appropriate to protect the food are specified, an emargency guidaace, are , constatent with Federal ingestfon pathway. developed and la place. amaMMEM"
% .uweni, m g%g and protective actfone for the ingest}on 3. Sectfon 50.54 la amended b five new paragraphs (q),(r),(s),y (t), and adding exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to fg% $p,a gua,
,,pm.
%, a suppen of Nudess Pww N**--
nan..t d th locals haya been deyeloped. (u).' (11) Maana for cantrolling redjologica] l 50.54 Cos< stone of econooe. For teemria the and Coor.aof !****4 38'S "posures. In an emergency, are * * *
- l l
Feeleral Register / Vol. 48, No.181/ Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Reguladone i 55419 .
^T 1
within so days of the effective date of sign 18 cant for b plant in 9"Boa, (q) A tkensee authorized to poness this amendment the rediological and/ce operate a nudear power reactor emergency response plans of State and that actions adequateinterim have been or w YtutetN, ' shall foDow and mtfatein in effect local governmental entitles in the United promptly, or that there are oth., , em plans which meet the States that are wholly or partia!!y within compelling reasons for continued st in i 80.47(b) and the requirementa in Appendix Iof this Part. a plume exposure pathway EPZ, as well op(eration.3)ne NRC willbanits Anding on a A Ucensee authorized to possess and/or as the plans of State govarnments review of the FEMA findings and operste a renarch reactor or a fuel whouy or partf ally within an ingestion pathway EPZ3 8 Ten (10) copies of the determinations as to whether State and facility shall follow and maintain in local emergency plans are adequate and efrect emergency plans which meet the above plans abaD be forwarded to the Director of Nudear Ructor Regulation capable of being implemented, and on requirements la Appendix E of this Part the NRC assessment as to whether the
& nudear power reactor IIcensee may with 3 copies to the Director of the licensee's emergency plans are adequate make changes to these plans without appropriate NRC regional off!cs.
the plume exposure pathway and capable of being implemented, Commtamion approval on!v if such Generady, dear power reactore shall Nothing In this paragraph shall be I changes do not decrease tlie EPZ for nu J consist of an area about to miles (16 km) construed as limiting the authority of b effectiveness of the plans end the plana, in radfus and the ingestion pathway EPZ Commission to take action under any as changed, continue to meet the other regulation or authority of the shall consist of an area about 50 miles Comm! sfon or at any time other than standards of I 50.47(b) and b (80 km)in radius, ne exact size and requirements of Appendix E of this Part. that spectBed in this parapaph. ne research reactor licensee and/or the conf!guration of the EPZs for a (t) A nudear power reactor licensee fuel facility licensee may niake changee particular nuclear power reactor shall shall provide for the development, to these plans without Commission be determined in relation to local revision, implementation, and emergency resporue needs and approval only if such changes do not capabilitfes as they are affected by such asalatenance ofits emergency decrease the effectiveness of the plans preparedness propam.To this end, the conditions as demopaphy, topography, and the plans, as changed, continue to land characteristics, access routes, and Ucenses shall provide for a review ofits ! J meet the requirements of Appendix E of jurisdictional boundaries.%e size of the emergency preparedness propam at ' this Part. Proposed changes that EPZs also may be determined on a case- least every 12 months by persons who 1 decease the effectiveness of the have no direct responsibility fofr ! by-case basis for gas-cooled nudeu appreved emergency plans shaU not be implementation of the emergency reactors and for reacters with an Implemented wi:hout appucation to and authorized p,,wer levelless than 250 preparedness program.De roi.w shall MW thermal ne lans for the ingestion include an evaluation for ade cy of i approval by tbs Commisalon.ne licensee shall furnf ah 3 copies of each interf aces with State and I pathway EPZ sh focus on euch > proposed change for approval; and/or if actions as are appropriate to protect the governments and oflicenses drills, a change la made without prior food ingestion pathway, exerdses, capabilities, and procedures, approval,3 copies shallbe submitted (2) For operating power reactors, the ne results of the review, along with , within 30 day: after the change is made licensee. State, and local emergency recommendations for Improvements, or proposed to the Director of the niponse plans shall be implemented by shall be documented, reported to the appropriate NRC regional ofBee April 1,1981, except as provided in licensee's corporate and plant spedfled in Appendix D,10 CFR Part 20 Section IV.D.3 of Appendix E of this management, and retained for a period with to copies to the Director of Nudear Part. lf after Aprill,1961, the NRC finds of Sve years.no part of the review Reactor Regu!stion, or,if appropriate. that the state of emergency involving the evaluation for adequacy of the Director of Nudear Material Safety preparedneae does not provide interface with State and local and Safeguards. U.S. Nudear Regulatory nas nable anurance that appropriate governments shall be available to the Commis sion, Wa shington, D.C. 20555. pmtective messuns can and will be appropriate State and local (r) Eath licensee who is authorized to taken la the event of a radiological governments. possess and/or operate a research or emergency and if the deficiencies are (u) Within 60 days after the effective test reactor facility with an authorized n t c rrected within four months of that date of this amendment. each nodear w er level greater than or equal to 500 finding. the Commisalon will determine power reactor licensee shall submit to W thermal. under a license of the type whether the reactor shallbe shut down the NRC plans for coping with , spectSed in i 50 21(c), shall submit until such de8dencies are remed!ed or emergencies that meet standards in emergency plans complying with to CFR whethat other enforcement action is t 50.t7(b) and the requirements of Part 50 Appendix E, to the Director of appropriate. In determining whether a Appendix E of this Part. Nuclear Reactor Regulation for approval shutdown or other enforcement action is . . . . . within one year from the effective data appt priate, the Commisalon shall take 4.10 CFR Part 50. Appendix E, !s of this rule. Each licensee who is "' ** *" cuthorized to poness and/or operats a ,$, [*g*c*: eNn"d n trate to A Ppendix E-Emergency Planning and research reactor facility with an the Commission's satisfaction that the Pnpandnua for Pmductico and WEsation j authorized power levelleas than 500 kW de8dende a la the plan are not radlitiesi j thermal, under a license of the type speciSed la i 50.21(c), shall submit ' rmereener Rabs tcees A en taaned hble of Cm emergeacy plans complying with 10 CFR ta ruumoesi era uolt-rs-osa. nan urs sua L Med08 foe & Dmtopment of state and Local covernmens Part 50, Appendix E, to the Director of wi two ye fro the f ch
" g $ $ j M 3 D *,7,7 [ l nepeu plans and a u. rmeretocr Mann!ne in F=1 Cycle of thls amehdment. 'if & Suu and loc 41 em h*" we pnv.esy pmvu w rac fae reann and new ucm.d voon to cn Pu s (s)(1) Each licensee who !s authorized '*** * * '**1 '*ck 'W*
- Mc**e *** ^"P**d M G een"d W **d
- M*' MHnMA-as.t. -Crwu for PnpanI '
to possese andlor operate a nudeat only pmvue the approgn4w n!=rvoce to meet tus Footnotes comunued on next pac powee reactor shallsummit to NRC r wne.ne. (
. Federal Resister / Vol 4 Ne tes) Tmdry August m 1989 / Ntdee and megeheens spet II.The Preltahary Analyste Itypoet considerveone as eccess rootes, serveendhig 42r of 6e overet osaceyt of <
IIL N Ptnal Safety Ana Itepart popsieties detrftstions. Inad ese: and loemi tion: shec deserk me seessaal IV. Content of thnerpacy ptas furtsectional bounderfee for the EPEE in the is of a plannha tot have been V. lmplementlas Procedores cese of socieer:ower reactore es wet es the censidend and to preetetoes that he,e been
- 1. Introuhacase means by whnd the standards of I suth) made to cope with eenerysacy arteenomas m wiu be met plans aban looorporeto informsties about the l Ee4 a for e onestrucOon permJt la As a minimum, the foDowing items shah be emergency r==f- ro6ee of supportrag l
regatred I sase(s) to taciude in cDe ducribed: tions and offette egenses he analysis report e A. Oostte and eferte organisations for ties shau be esfBdent to provide preustaaiy
<+ta*ce enfetyiminary plans for of pre. copbg coping with esperpudes and the means for asserance of oeordinaties among the wtB emergendet. Ead appheast for as notif!cadon. In the mot of an emergency, ed avJp orting groupe and ete the Benassa opers ting bcense le required by I 5044(b) to persons amtened to the emergency De P lane nahmitted mast ledade a laclude in b naal safety analyste report organizadona. descetpelos of the element set out in Secean plans for coptog with emergendee. EL Contecte and arrangemente mede and IV for the ' y Planning Zones (EPZs) 8 This appendix eetablishes min +=am documented with local. State, and Federaj requiremente for emerpacy plans for un la to se extent eIWant to deemnetrete that the governmental agendu with roepeneIbtllty fue plans provide reasonshis eseurance that attain!ng en ecceptable state of em coping with emerzendee tactedtog *Ppropriate meseares saa and wsil be talan pnpere& ness. Nu plans shall be descrt idenuficados of tfm prtadpal agendee. ta the went of as emergency.
generaDy to the prelimbary afety analysis C. Protective messuns to be talen withia
!Y. Caetant d - **" Phas
~
report and submitted e a part of the final b sats boucdary and withfn o.ch EPZ to safety amarysis report protect health and safety in the event of en b appucant's amargency plans shad
& poewetlal ridjologdcol hazards to the contala, bet W Wy be umhed m.
acddent procedures by which these Pubuc ==4ted with the opersdon of muruns an to be carried out (ag. le the tafwmadoe needed 2 d%te researth and test reactors and fuel fadildes cow of an evecuatfoth who authertaes the compUence wt& the aWs ut M Uc:naad under 10 CFR parts 50 and ?O evecestion, how the pubBc is ;o be notiSed "' ' *N* Lavolve emainteredans different than thces amodated with adear ww nutore, and tnstructed, how the avacuation la to be """***" carried out): azzi the erpected rnponse of
*ft1[ca oc n e cihdn annlag '
f other h)'p'e and equipment, tnjafas, maintain 6s tha. ,.w., n.e., aa .or facill a deg,ve to wua of it
,te to provided
,, ,,, cill a ,d .d em-.ener pnp- d- -d -ary. a comphent= wtth the requirements cd this do ! and for etes ncy
* "' ' #"E '" '"
- le* f'"***0 C** " l' i " J 4 "cIs"br. 0^'
IL N Pr=Aminary Safety Analysts Report d 3*de*'* ** * " ' '
- F. Preetstone to be made for ameryonc7 treatment at ofeite fedlitfee of tod!viduale S
g compuanz Mth b etandards doo<rbd in Secdon S&U(bP and they wtB be naluated h W Prehinny Safety Analyssa Report injund as a M M W eMos. agalast thoes standarda. & nucJeet power F. Proviskms foe a training program fue absH meta M =Mant informatten to ensurs riector opersting Heense oppBeant shan also S ,==p= ubutty of W employees of the Econsee. Including those provide sa analysts of the tune requind to plans for both ocaste mas and EPZa. whn an ants ed spo c en MMy and pocaste and for taking 06ee wtth inesu ty daign fun 4n. ette 1,yout. and
"'f*f
*n
**"'T '" ** ""' d " "'3"'7
' '6' P*"*** "b* *" " 'mploy en' 88'"'
u' cS h" ' *'*" *'c' "thin the phnw upons paewir etta locence wth twpea w eud of the Bcanase but whoes amfetance may be transient and Fa-t populatf oes. Pootnotas continued from last pas
- needed in 6e event of a radioic.gical emeryncy. A. Crycarsirense pg ,
p,,,, pgas, go, g,i.,y, t ,, og ( % "P" c,,,,,,,.
"* G. A prel+ndriary at.alyets that projects the time and meaas to be ed la the N organisation for rediological neeryndes with be descibed.
j January tsetL to prowsde pddaace ta denloptog nottScaNce of State and pveratnante tochding N of Wdea, plans br coping with amarguedes Copies of these and the pobHc in the event of an emergency, responstb411 ties, and dotles of Ladtviduals
&icemaets are er fiable at the Comn=srton's Pub 8e A andeer powor plant appbcant shad a seigned to the licensee a emergency Documsse maman 1717 H Street NW.. Wash!rigtcus. Perform a prelbeinary analyets of the tt:ne organiution and the seems for notfication of D C. Joa5L Captoe of these h==+s mey be required to evscoste eartous Mctors and l such todividuals in the mot of an he to Coversmass Prtatacaom" distances within the plume sooeure emugency. SpectScaHy. &e foUowing shau orussam on curmt prwm any be ottamad by pathway EPE fter tranelect and enent be tacJuded:
W D agass, P popolanone, noting safe to to the t A Woo & M M Salme Manager , avecuados or taking of protectles actor.s. operating organtution.
'trza he power ructor, an d! euned la R A pre 46adnary analysis reflecting the 1 A descripdoo of the ensit amerpecy
' Ntl REC-o3st IPA 120/1.ft-014 "Pianning Buta need to todede fedBties rystems, and Pa "I"8A"U # 8 ' 'd for the Dre=3cpment of Stae and tacal Covernment methode for idectifying the degree of "e'cu'ss"lon s d Radioloeral Emersvecy Response Ptaw h Support seriousness and pvtentLal ecope of a. Authorttles responeitthtfes, and dutfes of LJgbt Water Nedear Power Plaata,* Decocabar de 1 era. N stae of the IPza ler s -taa power plaat radfologf col consequences of eme*gency aM tale % Cruadons Mtun and outside b ette dartna an emarpocyt aan be d,termaed is r.is son m iocal emerieoc7
- und, ad cap.bassa a they an asected boundary, encfirae4 ** P8bes;f a for doJr Mt'ai
- c. etan e"
Authorioee,nepoelauwants by own conditless es demogripary, topogr Ay, p%cdon neldme metsorclegtcal uee ud dadu taad 4.r.cs.,1, ce, .ccus ,mme. ua infortnaoon for dfrpetch of redjotosicat on an ocalte emerpocy ccordinator who
)@* mal boundaries & staa of the IFza also monjtortng teams Mthin the EPZa: and a ihn b a d b uchane M may be determlaed oe a case-by ca se bute for gu. priltminary analysis refecting the to{e of the Wom don M e subrittu coe%d . carar rneto.s and for ruettre wt* as ceme technical rapport center and of 6 ble for coordbaung and oveertmed power leveline than 230 W 6ernal '
" cear-ofte & m.g operst!oce fedEty la 2:::::'4' i. be p-r-med.a'l& <a .d ie.e- -0::=na".2'le'd as J* .,
t,,,orma,rion to b pubue.'agay,dggn=g,a*.* . as use absene sian (ta hal m ndina nad se trgeetles peeway EPZ aba2 tonelat of as ame , 3 , ,,,,,, % ,, g abest E3 mese too halla redies (H.N Flead Sedsty Amelyele Raport criterte L NUB 3FAe64 FEMMEP-4 maded "Criterna for Pnpanties and tyskmass of Capsletary Celds 14 wt2 be weed se rddance b M Safety Ana}yrie Report shal Radselagical E==ry -y 8atamaa Mesa sad for tem ocaeynaborty of rowerts and teet twtar contain the plans for coptag wita Preparainese m e.a.,.cy ,emp ee pas , of t$edeer Power Ptaats
- emergencies. N plans shad be se he irines one tenary risa -
55M2 Federal Register / Vol 45. No. it] / Tueeday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and,.R*Mahes - headquartere personnel who will be sent to noted for such agendee6 %e emerpacy 1 Equipment foe deteratalas tb magnM ' the plant alte to augment es onalte claueo defined shad Indude:(1) notificados, of and for continuously emergency organizados. of unneual events. (2) alert. (3) alte sne of the rolesse of redioac% % g,p cg t'e materials to & ( Ident!Scadon. by position and funcdos emergency, and (4) general emergency. These environment; . to be performed, of persons withis the dasees are further dJacussed la NVAEG 0666 3. Facilities and supplies at b ett, go, licensee organizadon who wtD be responsible FWA-REP-L decontamination of onstte individu4 for making offalte does projecdona, and e 4. Fac111 des and medical suppues at the eit. ' descripdon of how these projections wtU be a No @0060, % for appropriate emerpacy first aJd tnetment l made and b results transmitted to State and 1. Adminfstrodve and phyalcal means for 5. Arrangements for the services el local authorides, NRC, and other appropriate noufytes local. State. and Federal omdals physidans and other medical personnel governmental entides. and agendes and agreements reached with quellf!ed to hand!e radiation emergendes oo.
- 8. Identificadon, by posiden and funcuon these omdals and apodes for the prompt site:
to be performed, of other employees of the notification of the pub!!c and for public 6. Arrangements for transportation of licensee with spedal quaMeadons for ccptng evacuadon or other protective measune, contaminated talured individuals from b with emupacy con & dona ht may artee. should they become necessary, shad be site to specficaUy identi!!ed treatment O<her perwns with spedal quaMeadona, descrsbed, n!s descrtpdon shad ladude facindes outside the site boundary. such as copultants, who are not employees identi!! cation of the appropriate omdala, by 7. Arrangements for treatment of cf the licensee and who may be c4Ued upon title and agency, of 6 State and local individuals injured in support of Uceued for assistance for emerpacies shad alsabe government agencies within the EPZa.e acdvittee on the site at treatment facillt ee identif!ed. De spedal qualificadens of these L Provisions shad be described for yearly outside the site boundary. persons shaU be describei essemination to the public tAthln the plume & A licensee onalte technical support
- 6. A description of the local oNsite services exposure pathway EPZ of besie emergency center and a licensee near site emupney to be provided la support of the IJceuee's planning informadon such as the meGods opersdoes feciuty from wh)ch eMective emergency organ!2ation, and times required for public non!!cadon and direcdon can be given and effective control
- 7. identificadon of, and as Istanca the protective actions planned if an acddent can be exerdsed duttng an emugency, expected from, appropriate State local, and occurs,3:nual information as to the nature 9. At leest one onalte and one oEsite Fedual apodes with responsibtLees for and effects of radiation, and a listing of local communications system; each system shall coptry with emergendes, broadcast stadons that will be used for have a bechp power source.
- 8. Identif! cation of the State and/or local disseminados of informadon during an All communication plans shad have omdals responsible for planning for, emupocy. Signs of other mea:T.res shall arrangements for amergendes. toduding ordering, and controlling appropriate also be used to d!ssemlnate to any transtant titles and altunates for those in charge at protective aedona,induding evacusticna populadon within the plume exposure both ends of the communicationlinksand the when necessary, pathway EPZ sppropnate informadon that primary and bechp toeana of would be helpful tf an acddent occurs, communication. Wtere coulstent we the S. Assessmaat Aedons 3. A Ucenses shall have the capability to function of the governmental agency, these De means to be used for determining the notify respoasble State and local arrancmants wtD fadude:
reagnitude of and for continuaDy assessing governmental agendes within 15 minutse e. Provis6os for communications with the lmpact of the releese of radJcactve afet dedaring an emerpacy.Re Ucensee contiguous State / local governments within matertals shall be descnbed. Induding shad demonstrate bt b State / local b plume expoente pathway EPZ. Such emergeocy acton leyela that are to be used of!!cials have tha capabillty to make a pubUc communications ahall be tested month!y, as c:nteria for determin!ng the need for actL5 cation dedslon promptly on being b. Provieton for cotomanicatione with nottf! cation and partcipation of local and taformed by the Ucensee of an amorpocy Fedual amupney rerponu organizations. State agencies, the Cocunission, and other condition. By July 1.19et tha nudear pow at Such communications eystems shall be tested Fedwal agendes, and the emerpocy acton reactor licensee shall demonstnte that annuaUy. levels bt are to be used for determining administntive and phyalcal means have been c. Provision for communicadens among the wheo and what type of protectse measures eatablished for alertig and providing prompt oudeas power teactor control room, the should be considered within and outside the instructions to the pubuc within the plume onsite technic 41 rupport canter. and the near. site boundary to protect health and safety. erposun pathwey EPZ. N design objectve site emarpocy operetions fad 11ry, and ne emerpacy acton 1svels shau be besed shau be to have the capability to essendaDy among tAe oudeu facility. 6 ptndpal State on in plant condf dons and lastrumentation in complete the initial notLScation of the pubus and local emnpocy operstions cactus, and addition to onsite and offsite monitoring. within the plume exposun pathwey EPZ b Beld assessment teama. Such Dese emnpocy sedon levels shad be within about 15 minutes. N use of this comm.nicadons systems shall be tested discussed and agreed on by the applicant and nott!!cadon capability wiu range from annually. State and local governmental authorides and immediate notiScation of the pubut (within d. Provisions for cornmunicatsoes by the approved by MtC.Ny shau a!so be 15 minuJee of 6 tima that Stata and local Ucensee with MtC Headquartne and the reviewed with the Stats and local omdals are notiSed that e attuatico exists appropriate MlC Iteg!ocal Omco Operedons governmental evtboridee on an annual be ets. requiring urgent action) to the more likely Center from the nucleat powat reactor eveots wbus there la substantal time control room, the onsite tedvJeal support C Actirouon offmerpacy Orycalsorlon center, and 6 nest. site emervocy avet!able for the State and local De entin spectrum of emergency govunmental omda!s to male a judgment opersdons factljty. Such communacations l conditions that Loyolve b alarting of whother or not to actvste the public shall be tested monthly. ) activating of progressivelylarget segments of nottf!cadon ey stem. Wlan bro is a decisloa the total emupocy organizados shall be to activate the notiScadon ey stem. b State I* M4 described. N communicadon steps to be and local ofCdals will determine whethat to N program to provide for (1) the treLning taken to alert or activate emngency activate the eatin notificadon sptem of employees and exascising. by periodje I personnel under each dass of emngency nmultaneously or la a greduated or staged ditUs.of rsdjation omnpncy plans to eeavis l shau be desabd. Emngency acdon leve!* manner. N responsibdity for activating that employees of the Ucensee are fam11ai i (based not only on onsite and offelte such a pubuc notificadon system abau remala with theit specfic emusency tesponse duties rediatjon monitoring laformadon but also on with b appropriate goternment authortdes. and (2) the partidpadon Ln the training and readings from a number of sensors that ditUs by othat persons whose assistance may ind1cato e potendal emergency, such as the E Emergency rocdib,es and Equipcaent be needed La the event of a redjadon pressure la contatament and the tesponse of Adequate provisions shsU be made and emergerxy shau be described. T.de stau 1 the Emergency Core Cooling System) foe described for emergency fedhees and indvde e desaipdon of spedalized initial ; notificadon of offsite agendee shau be equipmeet. Ladudir$ trslains acd periodic retrstrdag programs to i described. N existence, but not the details. 1. Equjpment at the site for personnal be provided to eoch of b foDowing of a coessage authendcation scheme shall be monatoring categories of emerpocy pomaneh
.$s.w.r. A u,i n. = r u.. .w.m imo,
% , , me;I UC'*,ed fue operelles each year a hnB4cale furnish the D(rector of Nuclear Material pa. tenDirecto'1 and/or !
g tous af b which lavolves the '
, eordee is not Safe ' and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear u% t " "I M ' ble fee semidest giete(s) within e exposure pathwer Re atory Commtsalon, Washington, person of onctrol mess AAR nAD enining. Includard exerden, shaE D.C. 20555, with a copy to the
- c. Radiol rovide for formal critiqua la order m appropriate NRC Regional Office
"" '* dentify weak areas that need corncdone. speciDed in Appendix D Part 20 of this
- d. Fire con are deeg '
- e. Repair and d coe ham,, Any weaknesses that are tduti8ed shau be Chapter, eoch change within six months
- f. First old and roeces teemas corrected. efter the change is made. Proposed edical support g ^ C. Maintainig F.mettency PrepanM danges that decrease the effectiveness fUcensee,o heedquartere eupport of the approved emergency plan ebad personnet Provisions to be employed to suure that not be implemented without prior L Security per,onnal, the emergency lan. us implemenun8 In addition, e redjotosical orientation procedures, a amargency equfpment and appUcation to and prior approbal by the treining program shd tw made avellable to suppues are malatsined up to date sha!! be Co as on.
local services personnel. e , local Crvtl descnbed. l Defense, locallaw enforcement personnel. (Sec.161b. L and o. Pub. L &Mtn 88 StaL l local news media persona. N A8"*fF 948 (42 U.S C. 2T1h Sec. 201. es amended. The plan shall desch provisions for the Criterts to be used to determine when. Pub. L 93-434. 88 Stat.1242. Pub. L 94-73. se conduct of emergency prepandsese fo!!owing an accide,t. *eentry of b feeq1ry- Stat. 413 (42 U.S C. 5341)) earrcises. F.xercises shad test the adequacy would be appropnate or when operat os Deted at Washington. DC. tie l'th Ja, of of timing and content ofimplementig , could be resumed shall be desenbed. August 19e06 procedures and methods, test emergency y f,rpletrientig Procedune For b Nuclear Regulatory Commission. equipment and communjcadon networks, test th3 pubuc notif! cation system. and ensure No leu than too days prior to scheduled Samuel J. Chuk. ,, that emergency organizados personnel are issuance of an operatirig license for a nudsar Secnictyo/Of Co#m88toA famillar with their duties. Each !!censee shan pcwer teactor or a Ucense to pos,*sa nudeer gra cor, se.asso twd e-ta-aa eis ; exerdse at lesat annuaUy b emergency material. 3 copies of each of b sppucant's seu.ase coce reeke14s for tech ette et whJch it has one or mor, plan detailed implementing procedures for its power reactors Ucensed for operetion. Both emergency plan shall be submitted to b full scale and smaD scale exercius shad be Dinctor of the appropriate NRC Regional 10 CFR Part 50 - conducted and shall ladude participadon by Mce mth to copies to the Dtnctor of I appropriate State and local govemment Nudeat Reactor Reguladon or,if approprieto- a' agendes as foCows: the Director of Nudear Material Safety and E N Plantieng: Megettve -
- 1. A full.ecale exerdu which testa as much Safeguards. In cases where a dedslon on sa #"
of the Ucensee. State, and local emerpacy operettng licenu la scheduled less than one impact for Effective Rule Changes a plans ae is teasocably achievable wibut yeas after 6 efrective date of this rule, euch impimuting procedures shad be submitted 3og,ec'i U.S. Nudear Regulatory. anudatory pubbe partidpadon shaU be ggg conducted; as soon as praedcable but before fuu ee
- e. For eoch site et which one or more operation is authorized. Prioc to Ma 1. Acticoe IPnal i negetive dedaration:
power reactors are located and ucensed for 1981 Licensees who are aubrized to opersto finding of no signtBeant impact. operadon. et least once every Sve yests and a nudent power faallry shaU submit 3 copies at a frequency which wiu enable each State och of the Descsee's emergoney plan susstaAnyt & Nadaar Regulatory end local government within b plume implementing proceduna to the Director of Commisalon's regulationa requits that exposute pethwey EPZ to pardcipate in at the apptcpriate NRC Regfocal Of5c4 with to the envtronmentalimpact of certain least one full-scale amerdu per year and ccpies to 6 Director of Nudear Reactor regulatory actions, induding substantive which wiD enable each Staje within b Regulaton nrn copies uch of any changes amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, be Ingestion pathwsy to parddpate in at least to maintain thue impimenting procedures evaluated to determine Lf an one ful!4cale ex.erein every thru pars. up to date shad be submitted to the same environmental impact statement should
- b. For each site at which a power resetor is NRC Regional 05ce wtth to copies to the located for which the first operstly bcense Director of Nudeas Reacter Regulation or,if be EteEared'11it is determined an appropriate. the Director of Nudeas Material environmental impact statement need for that ette is issueo after the effeccio date of thje amendment. within one year before Safety and Safeguards within 30 days of such not be prepared, a negative declaration the lasuance of b operstig Ucense for full cha q ,s. wiu be issued.no NRC has evaluated power, which wt!! enable each State and the endronmentalimpact of the loc:1 sovernment within the plume exposure PART 70-00MESTIC LICENSING OF proposed changea to Part 50 deallag EPZ and uch State within the ingesuos with emergency planning requirements pathway EPZ to participate.
SPECIAL NUCLEAR WATERI$L for nuclear power plants (pubushed
. 2. The plan shad also docebe proustons 2. Section 70 32 !s arnended by adding elsewhere in this issue), and has for lavolving Federaj emerlency ressense paragraph (i) to re ad as fouows:
determined that the rule changes wiu
*3 *
- Ifa32 cmdone of se,nsee, pr p ue e for Ne at whJch not have a significant Lmpset on the
* *
- e e hurnan environment. Derefore, an one or more power reactors are located and licensed foe opersdon at least once every 3 (i) Ucensees required to submit environmentalimpact statement wiU not years: . ernergency plans in accordance with be prepared, and a negative declaration
- 3. A smau. scale perdse which tests the is being issued.
170.22(l) shad foUow and maintain la ade uncy of communicadonlirds- effect emergency plans approved by the DAtts: The rule changes for emergency "Je,0a*"$'e'e"n'e@y'"%;'e veis, and ta. ne ucenue mo mas pianning -in become errecuve tests at least one other component (e 3 S a'"n=ge's"to the approved lans November without 3.1980, , medical or offsite monitorina) of 6 offsite gmaission approval o y if such ADOAESSgt: Copies of the Final emergen response plan for ucanue. State. g3anges do not decrease the Environmental Assessment. NURIC-and local merenc7 pI'88 I*'I"'i'dl"6ons effectiveness of the plane and the plans. 0685, and the comments rec 41ved by the within h plume exposure pathway EPZ as changed, continue to meet the Commission may be examined in the chau be conducted et eoch site et wh) one requjrements of Appendix E. Sectjon IV. Commisslon's Public Document Room et et more power teactors are loca CPR Part 50. N Ucenses shall 1717 H Street NW, We shington, D.C.
I I i Locument 5: 10 CFR $ 50.47 (prior to 1987 Amendment)
g 30,47 10 CPR Ch. I (1 144 Edy fuel, excluding the cladding surround. 8 50.47 Emergency plane. Ing the plenum volume, were to react. (4) Coolable geometry. Calculated (a)(1) Except as provided in Dag changes in core geometry shall Pe graph (d) of this section, no operating license for a nuclear power reactor sq such that the cora remains amennole be issued unless a finding is made by to cooling. NRC that there is reasonable assng, (5) Long term cooling. After any cal- ance that adequate protective mets. culated successful in(tlal operation of ures can and will be taken in the eveng the ECCS. the calculated core temper- of a radiological emergency. sture shall be maintained at an ac- (2) The NRC will base it.s finding on ceptably low value and decay heat shall be removed for the extended a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) find!nts period of time required by the lived radioactivity remaining in the long* and determinations as to whether core. State and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reason. (c) As used in this section: (1) Loss- able assurance that they can be irnple, of coolant accidents (LOCA's) are hy-mented, and on the NRC assessment pothetical accidents that would result as to whether the applicant's ons!.4 from the loss of reactor coolant, at a emergency plans are adequate gnq rate in excess of the capability of the whether there is reasonable assura.w reactor coolant makeup system, from that they can be implemented. A breaks in pipes in the reactor coolant FEMA finding will primarily be baseg pressure boundary up to and including on a review of the plans. Any otherin. a break equivalent in size to the formation already available to FE)4 double ended rupture of the largest may be considered in assessing wheth. pipe in the reactor coolant system. er there is reasonable assurance that (2) An evaluation modelis the calcu- the plans can be implemented. In any lational framework for evaluating the NRC licensing proceeding, a FD4 behavior of the reactor system during finding will constitute a rebuttable a postulated loss-of coolant accident presumption on questions of adequacy (LOCA). It includes one or more com- and trnplementation capability, puter programs and all other informa. (b) The onsite and, except as provid. tion necessary for appilcation of the ed in paragraph (d) of this section.off. calculational framework to a specific site emergency response plans for nu. LOCA. such as mathematical models clear power reactors must meet the used, assumptions included in the pro- following standards: ' grams, procedure for treating the pro * (1) Primary responsibilities for etcer. gram input and output Information. gency response by the nuclear facult; specification of those portions of anal. licensee and by State and local orgarJ-ysis not included in computer pro- sations within the Emergency Fian-grams, values of parameters, and all ning Zones have been ass!gned, the other Information necessary to specify emergency responsibilities of the vari-the calculational procedure. ous supporting organizations have i (d) The requirements of this section been specifically established, and each are in addition to any other require- principal response organization has ments applicable to ECCS set forth in staff to respond and to augment tu this part. The criterta set forth in initial response on a continuous bas.a paragraph (b) with cooling perform * (2) On shif t f acilltt lleensee rnpon-ance calculated in accordance with an sibilities for emergency response are acceptable evaluation model, are in unambiguou 'y defined. adequate implementation of the general re- staffing to provide inillal fact!!ty sat-quirements with respect to ECCS cool. dent response in key functlenal areas ing performance design set forth in is maintained at all times, tir::ely 44 l this part. Including in particular Crite* mentation of response espattlaties is ' rion 35 of Appendix A. available and the interfaces a:nora (39 ra 3002 Jan. 4.1914, as amended at 30 various onsite Msponse ach nt 21121. July 25.1974: to FR 8188. Mar. 3. offsite support and resporue y 19753 are specified. i 454
Nuclear Regulefory Commission l 50.47 (3) Arrangements for requesting and (10) A range of protective actions effectively using assistance resources have been developed for the plume ex-have been made, arrangements to ac- posure pathway EPZ for emergency ! commodate State and local staff at the workers and the public. Ouldelines for licensce's near site Emergency Oper- the choice of protective actions during attons Facility have been made, and an emergency, consistent with Federal other organizations capable of aug. guidance, are developed and in place, menting the planned response have and protective actions for the inges-been identifled. tion exposure pathway EPZ appropri-(4) A standard emergency classifica. ate to the locale have been developed. tion and action level scheme, the bases (11) Means for controlling radiologi-of which include facility system and cal exposures, in an emergency, are es-effluent parameters, is in use by the tablished for emergenc) workers. The nuclear faMllty licensee, and State and means for controlling radiological ex-local response plans call for rellance posures shall include exposure guide-on Information provided by facility !!. lines consistent with EPA Emergency censees for determinations of mini. Worker and Lifesaving Activity Pro-mum inillal offsite response measures, tective Action Guides. (5) Procedures have been established (12) Arrang nents are made for med!- for notification, by the lleensee, of cal services for contaminated injured State and local response organizations individuals. and for notification of emergency per. (13) General plans for recovery and sonnel by all organizations; the con- reentry are developed. tent of initial and followup messages (14) Periodic exercises are (will be) to response organizations and the conducted to evaluate major portions public has been established; and of emergency response capabilities, means to provide early notifiestion period!c drills are (mill bet conducted and clear Instruction to the populace to develop and maintain key skills, and within the plume exposure pathway deficiencies identitled as a result of ex-Emergency Planning Zone have been ercises or drills are (will be) corrected. (15) Radiological emergency re. established' (6) Provisi ons exist for prompt com. sponse training is pro ded to those munications among principal response who may be called on sasist in an organizations to emergency personnel l6 onsibilities for plan devel. ( ) o a i rk is made available to e TMN W M h h the public on a periodic basis on how tion of emergency plans are estab-they will be notified and what their trained.lished, and planners are properly Initial actions should be in an emer. (c)(1) Failure to meet the applicable gency (e g. listening to a local broad
- standards set forth in paragraph (b) of cast station and remaining indoors), this section may result in the Cornmis-the principal points of contact with sion declining to issue an operating 11 the news media for dissemination of cense; however, the applicant will have information during an emergency (in- an opportunity to demonstrate to the cluding the physical location or loca- satisfaction of the Commission that tions) are estabitshed in advance, and deficiencies in the plans are not signif-procedures for coordinated dissemina* leant for the plant in question, that tion of Information to the public are adequate interim compensating ac-established. tions have been or will be taken (8) Adequate emergency facilitles promptly, or that there are other com-and equipment to support the emer- peiling reasons to permit plant oper-gency response are provided and main- allon.
tained. (2) Generally, the plume exposure (9) Adequate methods, systems. and pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants j equipment for assessing and monitor- shall consist of an area about 10 miles ing actual or potential offsite conse. (16 km) in radius and the ingestica quences of a radiological emergency pathway EPZ shall consist of an area condition are in use, about 50 miles (80 km) in radius. The 455 1 R
I 50.44 10 CFR Ch.1(M-44 exact size and configuration of the tection program for the facility EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear tify the various poAltlons within't
- power reactor shall be determined in censee's organization that art res 'li' relation to local emergency response sibile for the program, state the &
needs and capabilities as they are af. thorities that are delegated to gge fected by such conditions as demogra. these positions to implement those 4 phy, topography land characteristics, sponsibilities, and outline the access routes, and jurisdletional for fire protection. fire detection boundaries. The size of the EPZs also suppresslori capability, and !!rnitat' " may be determined on a case by case of fire damage. The plan shall also basts for gas. cooled nuclear reactors scribe specific features necessar and for reactors with an authorized Implement the program descn
- power levelless than 250 MW thermal. above, such as administrative cong The plans for the ingestion pathway and personnel requirements for f shall focus on such actions as are ap. prevention and manual fire suppe propriate to protect the food ingestion pathway, sion activities, ly operated automatic fire detection and suppand rnank (d) Notwithstanding the require, slon systems, and the means to g ments of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this fire damage to structures, systerns, section, no NRC or FEMA review, components important to safety findings. or determinations concerning that the capability to safely shut down the state of offsite emergency pre, the plant is ensured.8 paredness or the adequacy of and ca. (b) Appendix R to this part estas pability to implement State and local lishes fire protection features requireq offsite emergency plans are requitad to satisfy Criterion 3 of Appendit A to prior to issuance of an operating 11 this part with respect to certain ger.,,.
cense authorizing only fuel loading fc issues for nuclear power plants I, and/or low power operations (up to censed to operate prior to January 1 53r of the rated power). Insofar as 1979. Except for the requirernents of emergency planning and preparedness Sections !!!.O. IIIJ. and Ill.O. th. requirements are concerned, a license provisions of Appendix R to this part authorizing fuel loading and/or low shall not be applicable to nuclear power operation may be issued af ter a power plants !! censed to operate pno, finding is made by the NRC that the to January 1.1979, to the extent that state of onsite emergency prepared. fire protection features proposed or ' r.ess provides reasonsble assurance implemented by the licensee han that adequate protective measures can been accepted by the NRC staff as sat. and will be taken in the event of a ra, isfying the provisions of Appendia A diological emergency. The NRC wilj to Branch Technleal Position BTP ' base this finding on its assessment of APCSB 9.5-l' reflected in staff fire the applicant's emergency plans against the pertinent standards in ' Basic fire protection swdance for nuese pala3raph (b) of this section and Ap- ar poner plants is contamed m tso Nac 1 pendix E of this part. doeurnenta: l
- Stanch TechnicaJ Positlen Aun!!ary (Sec.161 b l., and o.. Pub. L 83 703, 68 Poser Conversion System Branen BTP Stat. 948 (42 U.S C. 22014 sec. 201. as .APCSB 9 51, "Ouldelines for Ftre Protec arnended. Pub. L 93-438, 88 Stat.1242. Pub. tion for Nuclear Poser Plants 7 for rn I. 94-19,89 Stat. 413 (42 U.S C. 5841n plants docketed after July 1.1978. dated 145 FR 55409. Aug. 8.1980, as arnended at 47 May 1978.
FR 30235. July 13.1982: 47 FR 40531. Sept.
- Appendix A to BTP APCSS 9 M 15.1982' 49 FR 21738. July 8.1984; So FH "Guidelines for Fire Protection for Neest 19324. May 8.19851 Poser Plants Docketed Pnor to hly 1 1978" for plants that mere owatts or 8 50.48 Flie protection. under sarious stages of des.gn or corev
" D" #"lY 3 ' I '7 8 d8 ^' '#
(a) Each operating nuclear power plant shall have a fire protection plan [,7,Eo see Note 4 that satisfies Critetton 3 of Appendix A. ICtanfication And guidance eith rese , A to this part. This fire pro:ection to permissible alternauses to satury Apen j plan shall describe the overall fire pro- CM i 456 1 1 l l I I i
1 ( l l l l l Document 6: 10 CFR Part 50, Ap,.endbc E (prior to 1987 Amendment) I 1
P rt50, App.I 10 CFR Ch.1 (t.144 Editi,q
- 11. Arettcants WHIcx Ang newly PoRuto ENTittas sary to enable the Commlufon to determine an applicant's the license. financial qualifications for A. Applicationsfor construction permits (49 FR 35753. Sept.12.1984.
- 1. Estirnate of constructfos costJ. The in. u amended at formation that will normally be required of 50 FR 18853. May 3.19851 applicanLa which are newly formed entitles will not differ in scope from that required of Arrtxotx D-[Resersed) established organaations. Accordingly, ap.
plicantJ should submit estimates u de. Arrtnpfx E-Extactucy Pt. ANN!MC aM3 scrtbed above for established organization.s. PatrAntDNass rom PnonucTrow axo
- 2. 3ource o/ conJtructfos funds. The appil- UT!!.t1ATION Fae:LITits cation should specifically identify the
. source or sources upon which the applicant l relles for the funds neceuary to pay the Mle o/ CelM cost of contructing the facility, and the
!. Introduction amount to be obtained from each. With re-spect to each source, the application should II. The Preliminary Safety Analysts Report describe in detall the applicant's legal and III. The Final Safety Analysts Report financial relationships w1th its stockholders. IV. Content of Emerger'cy Plans ccrporate affiliates, or others (such u (1 V. Implementing Procedures nancial institutional upon shich the appli, cant t< relying for financial assistance. If 1. lMinoocettoN the sources of funds relled upon include Each applicant for a construction permit parent companies or other corporate affill- is required by I 50 3Ua) to include to the stes, information to support the financial preliminary safety analysk report a discus, capaDility of each such company or affiliate sion of preliminar;/ plar6s for coptng Vith to meet its commitments to the appilcant emergerwies. Each applicant for an opertt.
should be set forth in the application. Thts Ing licertse is required by I 50.3Ebl to tn. infor7 nation should be of the same kind and clude in the final safety inalysts report scope u would be required if the parent plans for coping sith emergencies. companies or affiliates sere in faci the ap- This appendix establishes minimum re. pl) cant. Ordinarily, it will be necent ry that quirements for emergency plans for use ga ! copies the of agreements companies or contracts among attatning be submitte$ an nece9 table state of emergency preparedness. These plana shall be se. As noted earlier in this appendlx. an appil- scribed generally in the preliminary safet; cant which is a newly formed entity will analysis report and submitted as part at the normally not be in a position to submit the finti safety analysts report. usual types of balance sheets and income The potential radiological hasards to the statements reflecting the results of prior op- public associated sith the operation of re. erstions. The appiteant should, hosever,in- sestch and test reactors and fuel fac111tJes ti, clude in its appliestion a statement of its -censed under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 70 in. Essets. liabilities, and capital structure u of volve consideratforts different than those as. the date of the app!! cation. sociated with nuclear poner reactora. Cor.se. quently.
""* the size of Emergency Plannmg
!!!. ANNt?aL FImanciat Stattutst 3 ### I'#" '" " ' 'O Each holder of a conJtruction permit for a production or uttttaation facility of a typ, 'EPIs for poser reactors are dlac.assed in described in i SO 21tti or i 50 22. or a testing NUREO 0396; EPA 520/178-010.-Plannr4 facility is required by i 50.1(b) to file Ita Buts for the Development of State and ,
annual financial report with the Commis. 14 cal Governtnent Radiological Emergency ( slon at the time of 1ssuance thereof. This re. Response Plans in Support of IJght Water ; gulrement does not apply to licensees or Nuclear Pos er Plants." December 1978. The holders of construction permits for medkal site of the EPIs for a nuclear poser p: ant and research reacters. shall be determined m relation to local emergency response needs and capatdttles IV. Azottron4L InronMarlos u they are affected by such conditions as The Commission may, from time to time, demography, toportaphy. land charactens. request the app!! cant. thether an estab- tics, access routes and lurtsdictional beant i Itshed organLzation or nesty formed entity, anes. The site of the EPZ.s also may be de. to submit additional or more detailed infor- termmed on a cue by<ue buts for tu. mation respecting its financial arrtnse- sith cooled nuclear reactors and for reactors i' an authorized poser leselless than 2H ments more detalled informatton respecttng its finanetal arrangements and status of MW thermal. Generally, the plume assc-fimds if such information is deemed neces- sure pathsay EPZ for nuclear poner p: ants O*htve l 508 l 1 l l i l 1 I I i I l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Port 50, App E power reactors and the degree to which tion of onsite individuals to offsite treab compilance with the requirements of this ment f actttttes, i section and sections II. Ill. IV, and V as nee-j essary will be determined on a cue by<ase E. Provisions to be made for emergency buts.8 treatment at offsite facilities of Individuals i Nottithstanding the above paragraphs. in injured sa a result of licensed activities. l the case of an operating lleense authortaing F. Provtstons for a training program for l only fuel loading and/or low poner oper- employees of the licensee, including those ations up to 5% of rated pomer. no NRC or sho are auigned speelfle authority and re. FEMA review. findings. or determinations sponsibility in the event of an emergency! concerning the state of offsite emergency and for other persons who are not employ preparedness or the adequacy of and the ca- tes of the licensee but whose eaststance may pa511ty to implement State and local offsite be needed in the event of a radiological emergency plans, n defined in this Appen- emergency. dix. are required prior to the issuance of O. A preliminary analysis that projects such a license. 4 to M WW m W notification of State and local governments
!!. THg Partsutwany Sarr71r AMatysis and the public in the event of an emergen.
R E#0" cy. A nuclear poner plant applicant shall perform a preliminary analysis of the time The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report required to evacuate var!ous sectors and dis. shall contain sufficient Information to tances within the plume exposure pathway ensure the comgat.otat) of proposed 1rmer- h,PZ for trartsfent and permanent popula. gency plans for both onsHe areu and the tions, noting major impediments to the EPZs. sith facility design features, site esacuation or taking of protective actions. la/out, and site location with respect to H. A preliminary analysis reflecting the such consideratfor's as access routes, sut* , roundtrig population distributiont land use, need to include facilities. systema, and and local juttsdictional boundaties for 'he methoca for identifying the destee of serv . EPZs in the cue of nelcat pewer reanors ousness and potent!al scope of radiological u s ell u th.i means oy a blch the standards cor. sequences of emergency situations of l LO.47(b> mill be met, within and outside the site boundary, in-As a rrinimum, the follomIng itera.s shall ciuding espabilities for dose projection using real time meteorological information A N.s and offsite organtutions for and for dispatch of radiological monitoring coping alth errergencies and the means for tetrns within the EPZs and a preliminary notif! cation. In the egent of an emergency, an4ysis reflecting the role of the onsite of persons assigned to the emergency orga. technical support center and of the near. naations. site emergency operations facility in usess. B. Contacts and arrangements made and ing information, recommending proteethe documented mtte local. State, and Federal action. and disseminating information to gobernmental agerwies alth responsibility the public. for coping 3ith emt gencies, including iden. tafleation of the prit tpal agencies. !!!.THe Finat Sarr71r Amatysts Rayoat i C. Proteethe meu ees to be taken althin The Final Safety Analys's Report shall the site boundary a. d within each EPZ to .
)
protect hetith and rafety in the event of an contain the plans for coping 31th emergen- i accident: prxedures by thich these meu* cles. The plans shall be an expression of the i ures are to be cartied out (e g.,la the case of ostrall concept of operation: they shall de. ) an evacuation. the authorues the evacu. scribe the essential elements of ad*aAce i atton. how the public is to be noulted and pitnning that have been considered and the { instructed. how the evacuation is to be car
- provisions that hat e been made to cope alth 1 ried out); and the expected response of off. emergency situations. The plans shall incor.
site agencies in the enent of an emergency- potate information about the emergency re-D. Features of the facility to be prontded sponse roles of supporttrig organizations and for onsite emergency fit. t aid and decon. offsite agencies. That mformation shall be tammation and for emergency transporta. sufflelent to provide assurance of coordina-tion among the supporting groups and mith t he lice nsee. mith an authorned poser level greater than The plans submitted must include a de-250 MW thermal shall consist of an area scription of the elements set out in Section , about 10 miles (16 km)in radius and the in. IV for the Emergency Planning Zones gestion pathsay EPZ shall consist of an (EPZs> to an extent sufficient to demon. j trea about 50 miles (80 kin bin radius, s: tate that the plans provide reasonable u. '
' Regulatory Guide 2.6 mill, be used u surance that adequate protective meuures guidance for the acceptability of research tan and mill be taken in the event of an and test reactor emergency response plans. emergency.
509 . i
Port 50, App. E 10 CFA Ch.1(1 146 EWilen) IV. CoMt?NT or EuractMc7 Ptans arise. Other persons with special qualifica. The applicant's emergency plans shall tions. such as consultants, tho are , at em. contain, but not necessarily be limited to, ployees of the licensee and sho may be information needed to demonstrate compit. called upon for assistance for emergencies ance with the elements set forth below i.e shall also be identified. The special qualifl. organization for coping tith radiation emer'. cations of these persons shall be described. gencies, asseasment action, activation of 6. A description of the local offsite serv. emergency organization, notification proce. Ices to be provided in support of the licens. dures. emergency facilities and equipment, ee's emergency organization. training, maintaining emergency prepared. L Identification of, and assistance expect. ness, and recovery. In addition, the emer. ed from. appropriate State. local. and Feder. gency response plans submitted by an appil. al agenctes with responsibilities for coping cant for a nuclear poner reactor operating tith emergencies. Incense shall contain information needed to 8 Identification of the State and/or local demonstrate compliance alth the standards offletals responsitte for planning for, order. described in l 50.4hb), and they till be eval- Ing, and controlling appropriate protective usted against those standards. The nuclear actions. Including evacuations then neces. pos er reactor operating license applicant stry. shall also provide an analysts of the time re. qulted to evacuate and for taking other pro. B. Assessment ActionJ tective actions for sarlous sectors and dis. tances utthin the plurne exposure pathsay The means to be used for determining the EPZ for transient and permanent popula. magnitude of and for continually assessing tions. the impact of the release of radioactive ma. terials shall be described, including emer. A. Omo nuotton gency actlen lesels that are te be use1 as The organization for coping sith radiolcg* criteria for determining the need for notift. leal emergencies shall be described, includ' cation and participation of local and State Ing definition of authorttles. responsibilities, agencies the Commission, and other Feder. and duties of Individuals nas!gned te the 11 al agencies, and the emergency action levels censee's emergency organtz,ntion and the that are to be used for determinmg when means for notification of such Indhtduals in and t-hat type of protective measures the esent of an emergency. Specifically, the should be considered eithin and outside the follos ang shall be included; site boundary to protect health and safety, I. A description of the normal plant oper. The emergency action levels shall be based sting organisation. on in plant conditions and inattumentation
- 2. A desertption of the onsite emergency In addition to onsite and offstte monitoring.
response organizatlon nith a detailed discue. T'tese emergency action levels sham be dis. cuued and agteed on by the applicant and a thorities, responsibi!!tles, and duties State and locaj governmental authorities of the indjvtduaj(s) who t-tll take charge EE reviemed eith the State and local gosern. b ant a f erner ency assignments; m a o m ManaM W W
- c. Autherttles. responsibilities, and duties on an onsite emergency coordinator tho C. Actit'4 tion of Ememency Oyssustnom shall be in charge of the exchange of infor. The entire specttwo ol emergency condl.
mation with offs!Le authoritles responsible tions that involve the alerting or act!vsting for coordinating emergency met wres, and implementing offsite of progtessively larger segments of the total
- 3. A descrip' on, by sosition and function emergency organization shall be described.
to be perforTr.s*l C' the Ikenset s headquar.alert The or communleation acthste emergencystepspersonnel to be taken to under ters persoruiel tho t e sent to the plant each clus of emergency shall be described. site to augment the onstte emergency orga. Emergency action lesets (based not only on ntr.ation.
- 4. Identification, by position and function onsite formationand offsite but alsoradiation monitoring on read;r'ss fromin.
a , to be performed. of persons sithin the 11 1 censee organization who till be responsible number of sensors that indicate a potential , for making offsite dose projections. and a emersency, such as the preuure m contain. l description of how these proPctions till be ment and the response of the Emergency ' made and the resulta trsnarnttted to State Core Cooling System) for notification of off. site agencies shall be descrtbed. The esist. , and locaJ authorittes. NRC and other ap- ence, but not the details. of a message au. propriate governtnental entities. 3 S. Identification. by position and function thentication scheme shall be noted for such agencies. The emergency classes defined to be performed, of other eenployees of the shall include: (1) notlfication of unusual licensee tith special qualificatforts for event.a. (2) alert. (3) site area emergency, coping with emergency condition.s that may and t(i general emergency. These clanes 510 - i i I 9
Nuclear Regulefory Comm! sfon Port 50, App. E are further discussed in NUREG-06S4; esents there there is substantial time avatl. l FEMA REP l. able for the State and local governmental l officials to make a judgment whether or not l D. NofMcofion Procedures to activate the cub!!c notsfication system. [ 1. Administrative and physical means for Where there la a decision to actitate the no. noufying local. State, an<t Federal offletals Liflestion system. the State and local offi. i and agencies and agreements reached alth cials mill determine whether to activate the l these officials and agencles for the prompt entire notification system simultaneously or l notification of the public and for public in a graduated or staged manner. The re-esacuation or other proteettne meuures. sponsibility for activating such a publ6c no-should they become necessary, shall be de. tification system shall remain sith the ap-sertbed. This description shall include iden. propriate governmental authorstles. Llfication of the appropriate officials. by title and agency. of the State and local gov- f. Emertemer Facilif tes and Equipment ernment agencies althin the EPZs.' Adequate provisions shall be made and de.
- 2. Provisions shall dissemination to thebepublic described forthe withm yearly scribed for emergency factittles and equip.
plurne exposure pathsay EPZ of bule emer* ment. including: sency planning information. such a.a the 1. Equipment at the site for personnel monitoring; methods and times required for public not!' fication and the protectise actions planned 2. Equipment for determining the magni-if an accident occurs. generalinformation as Lude of and for continuously assessing the to the nature and effects of radiation and 6 impact of the releue of Latonctive materi-listir's of local broadcast stations that will als to the environment; be used for dissemination of information 3. Faellities and supplies at the site for de. duririg an emergency. Signs or other meu. contamination of onsite individuals; ures shall also be used to disseminate to any 4. Factllties and medical supplies at the transient population s1 thin the plume expo. site for appropriate emergency first aid tre atment* a ou d plu a ce nt oce 5. Arran'gements for the ser% ices of Jhysi-
- 3. A licensee sha!! hane the capability to clans and other medical personnel quallfled notify responsible State and local govern- to handle radiation emergencies on site; mental agencies within 15 minutes after de- Arrangements for transpcrtauon of claring an emergency. The licensee shall contaminated injured individuals from the demonstrate that the State / local officials site to specifically idenufled treatment fa.
hase the capability to make a public notift- cilities outside the site boundary; eation decision promptly on being informed 7. Arrangements for treatment of jr.divid-by the licensee of an emergency condition. uals injured in support of licensed actantles By February 1.1982. each nuclear poner re- on the site at treatment fac!!1"ies outalde actor licensee shall demonstrate that ad. the alte boundary; ministrative and physical means hate been 8. A licensee onsite technleal support established for alerting and providing center and a licensee near site emergency prompt instruction.s to the public mithin the operations f acility from shich effecuve di-plume exposure pathsay EPZ. The four, rection can be g1 en and effective control month period in 10 CFR 50 50sM2) for the can be eseretsed during an emergency; i trrection of emergency plan deficiencies 9. At leut one onsite and one offsite com-shall not apply to the trutlal installation of munleations systern; each system shall have tdis pub!!c notification system that ts re. a backup poser source. ertred by February 1.1982. The four month All communicauon plans shall have ar-pe riod stil apply to correction of deficien. tangement.s for emergencies. includin.g titles cai s identafled during the initial installation and alternates for those la charge at both ati testing of the prompt public nottfica, ends of the communleation links and the tic n systerns u sell u those deficiencies primary and backup means of communica-di cotered thereafter. The design objectise tion. Where constatent sith the function of of the prompt public notiftestion system the gosernmental agency. these arf ange-sr all be to hate the capability to essentially menta stil include; ct mplete the initial notification of the a, Prutston for cornmunications sith con. DJblic 3tthin the plurne esposure pathasy tiguous State /locaj goternments sithin the IPZ sithin about 15 minutes. The use of plume exposure pathsay EPZ. Such com-
'his notification capability atil ranse from munications shall be tested monthly, intnedtate notification of the public tulthin b. Prottslon for communleation.s sith Fed.
18 minutes of the time that State and local eral emergency resporue org arusattorts. offletals are notified that a situation entsts Such communicatior.s systems shaji be requiring urgent action) to the more likely tested annually.
- c. Prostanon for communications among the nuclear poser reactor control room. the
'See footnote 1 to section 1. onsite technical support center, and the 511
Port 50, App. E 10 CPR Ch.1 (1 146 Edition) n:ar sits srnirgincy operations facility; and local em rgency plans as is reasonably among the nuclear facility, the principal achievable without mandatory public par. State and local emergency operations cen- ticipation shall be conducted for each site at ters and the field assessment teams. Such which a power reactor is located for which communleations systems shall be tested an- the first operating license for that site is nually, lasued after July 13, 1982. This exercise
- d. Provisions for communleations by the shall be conducted within 1 year before the licensee with NRC Headquarters and the issuance of the first operating ilcense for appropriate NRC Regional Office Oper- full power and prior to operation above 5%
ations Center from the nuclear power reac- of rated power of the first reactor, and ehall tor control room, the onsite technical sup- include participation by each State and port center. and the near site emergency op- local government within the plume expo-erations f acility. Such communications shall sure pathway EPZ and each State within be tested monthly. the ingestion exposure pathwsy EPZ. l 7gg 2. Each licensee at each site shall annuaDy exercise its emergency plan. The program to provide for (1) the train- 3. Each licensee at each site shall exercise ing of employees and exercising. by periodle with offsite authorttles such that the State drills, of radiation emergency plans to and local government emergency plans for l ensure that employees of the licensee are each operating reactor site are exercised bi-familiar with their specific entergency re* ennially, with full or partial participation 8 sponse duties, and (2) the participation in by 8tates and local governments, within the the training and drills by other persons plume exposure pathway EPZ. State and whose assistance may be needed in the local governments that have fully partici-event of a radiation emergency shall be de- pated in a joint exercise since October 1, scribed. This shall include a desenption of 1982. are eligible to fully participate in specialized initial training and periodic re* emergency preparedness exercises on a bien-training programs to be provided to each of nial frequency. The level of participation the following categories of emergency per" shall be as follows-sawl: (a) A State shall at least partially partici.
- a. Directors and/or coordinators of the pate in each offsite exercise at each site.
plant emergency organization; (b) A State shall fully participate in at b Personnel responsible for accident as-s sament, including control room shift pet-Imt m offe exercise every 2 years. (e) At least once every 7 years. all 8tates
- c. Radiological monitoring teams; within the plume exposure pathway EPZ
- d. Fire control teams (fire brigades); for a given site must funy participate in an
- e. Repair and damage control teams; offatte exercise for that site. This exercise
- f. First aid and rescue teams;. must also involve full participation by local
- g. Medical support personnel; governments within the plume exposure
- h. IJcensee's headquarters support pet. pathway EPZ.
sonnel; (d) Partial participation by a local govern-
- 1. Security personnel. ment during an offaite exercise for a site is In addition, a radiological orientation acceptable only when the local government training program shall be made available to local services personnel; e.g., local emergen-cy services /CMI Defense, local law enfore,. censee personnel physically and actively ment personnel. local news media persons. take part in testing their integrated capabil.
The plan shall describe provisions for the ity to adequately accees and respond to an conduct of emergency preparedness exer, accident at a commercial nuclear power ; elses as follows: Exercises shall test the ade, plant. Full participauon" includes testing quacy of timing and content of implement. the major observable portions of the onsite ins procedures and methods. test emergency and offsite emergency plans and mobilisa-equipment and communications aetworks, tion of State, local and licensee personnel test the public notification system, and and other resources in sufficient mumbers ensure that emergency organlaation person, to mify the capability to respond to the ac-net are f ammar with their duties.s cident scenario.
- 1. A full participation
- exercise which 8 "Partial participation" when used in con.
tests as much of the licensee, State and junction with emergency preparednese exer-cises for a particular site means appropriate i offsite authoritles shall actively take part in l
- Use of site specific simulators or comput. the exercise sufficient to test direction and ers is acceptable for any exercise. control functions; Le (a) protective action
* ** Full partktpation" when used in con. decision maMng related to emergency action junction with emergency preparedness exer. levels, and (b) communication capabilities cises for a particular site means appropriate among affected State and local r.uthorttles offsite local and State authorttles and 11- and the licensee.
512
Nuclear Resuletery Commission Port 50, App. F I is fully participating in a biennial exefcise (Secs.161b L s.M o.. Pub. L 83 4 03; 64 at another site. Stat. 948 142 U.S.C. 2201); sec. 201 as (e) Each State within any ingestion expo- amended. Pub.L 93-438. 88 Stat.1242. Pub. sure pathway EPZ shall exercise its plans L 9449 (42 U.S.C. 5841D j and preparedness related to ingestion expo- f 45 FR 55410. Aug.19,1980: 48 FR 28839 l sure pathway measures at leut once every 5 May 29,1981, as amended at 46 FR 63032. years. Dec. 30.1981: 47 FR 30236. July 13.1982- 47 (f) Licensees shall enable any State or FR 57671. Dec. 28.1982; 49 FR 27736. July local government located within the plume 6.19841 exposure pathway EPZ to participate in annual exeretses when requested by such AyyrNDtx F-Por.teY Raz.AftNo To Txt state or local government. \ SITINo Oy Fttrz. Rrysocass!No Pt. ANTS
- 4. Remedial exercises will be required if the emergency plan is not satisfactorily AND RE1.ATED WASTE MANAGEMENT FA.
tested during the blennial exercise, such CII.tTtEs that NRC. In consultation with FEMA. cannot find reasonable assurance that ade. 1. Public health and safety considerations quate protective meuures can be taken in relating to licensed fuel reprocessing plants the event to a radiological emergency. The do not require that such f acilities be toested extent of State and local pauticipation in re- on land owned and controlled by the Feder-medial exercises must be sufficient to show al Government. Such planta, including the that appropriate corrective meuures have facilities for the temporary storage of hfsh-been taken regarding the elements of the level radioactive wastes, may be located on plan not properly tested in the previous ex- privately owned property. ercises. 2. A fuel reprocessing plant's inventcry of
- 5. All training. Including exercises, shall high-level 11guld radioactive wastes will be provide for formal critiques in order to iden- limited to that produced in the pnor S tify weak or deficient areas that need cor- years. (For the purpose of this statement of rection. Any weaknesses or deficiencies that policy. "high. level liquid radioactire wutes**
are identified shall be corrected. means those aqueous eastes resulting from G. Matafatnige Emerpency PreparedneJs the operation of tiv) first cycle solvent ex. traction system, or equivalent, and the con-Provtafons to be employed to ensure thag centrated wutes arom subsequent extrac. , j the emergency plan, its implementing proce, tion cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for tes dures. and emergency equipment and sup- processing irradiated reactor fuels.) Hish, plies are maintained up to date shall be de. level 11guld radioactive wastes shall be con-scribed. verted to a dry solid as required to comply with this inventory limitauon and placed in N. Jtecovery a sealed container prior to transfer to a Fed. eral repository in a ahlppios cask rueeting Criteria to be used to determine when fol* the requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. The lowing an accident, reentry of the facility rould be appropriate or when operation dry solid shall be che*D . YthermaEv. and radiolytically stable to the extent that the could be ree".med s!'all be described. equilibrium pressure in the sealed container y,g w y ,p,,gg m will not exceed the safe operating pressure for that container during the period from No less than 180 days prior to the sched- canning through a minimum of 90 days uled issuance of an operating Ilcense for a after receipt titansfer of physical custody) nuclear power reactor or a license to possees at the Federal repository. All of these hish-4 I nuclear matertal one copy of the applicant's level radioactive wastes shall be transferred I detailed implementing procedures for its to a Federal repository no later than 10 , emergency plan shall be submitted to the yea:p following separation of fission prod-Administrator of the appropriate NRC Re. ucts. f'nm the irradiated fuel Upon receipt, stonal Office, specified in Appendiz D of th+ 7ederal repository will assume perma-l Part 20 of this chapter and two copies are to no/.t c#.ody of these radioactive wsne ma. I be sent to the Document Cor. trol Deal U 5. te tels although industry will pay tne Ped-Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washing- tral Government a charge which together ton. DC 20568. Ucensees who are authortsed with interest on unexpended balances will to operate a nuclear power facility shall be designed to defray all costs of dhoceal
=
i submit one copy of any changes to the and perpetual survettlance, the Department i emergency plan or procedures to the Ad. of Energy will take title to the radbeethe j ministrator of the appropriate NRC Region- waste matertal upon transfer to a Federsi ! al Office, specified in Appendia D.10 CFR repository. Before retirement of the reproc-Part 20. and two copies to the Document essing plant from operational status and i Control Desk within 30 days of such before termination of licensing pursuant to changes. l 50.82 transfer of all such naates to a Fed-513
/
1 5[ I Document 7: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where_ Etate and/or Local Governments Decline To Cooperate in Off-site EmergencyPlanning. 52 Fed. Reg. 6980-87 (March 6,1987)
)
o l i
4 g, . 7 '
~
6980 J ' k= MWe w ' vv e *"* W 7 Wm FE@W r%pssed EEfes m
... . *.@w.@~.
N .. . @; .w @w d r.'.. . Sr '., . 4%gQQth?
. 'a% * . - Frid .
p . p.
, gire r? 7t
- - - 3-=~ *-
3, .y .; . , , ,
' b necu r.4 the FEDERAL REGIS1M , whethii yoeen favor condr21!cn of Datab'Uch 3l1 etaC n +ces 'a the put$c of the markeng order yograms. De T+nnet'A.G&a,: % *.g' >, ,
proiosed 'Quanco of Mes aM ' a s.. regutat6 ore the purpne of 'Nse riot > d Secrets ry avould cou.lder terminatlon of AnisfNecretafyhMful8 fir #dd the order ifless than two-thirds of the In*PMID8 S*'**e. ,. D 10 W 18'*51*d C " *" '^ growers of Indian River grapefruit voting gr:t Ec.,87-4*r4 F1bd 3+6% s is arn)
, p ot pt n Snal in thg referends.m and gi nyers olless pumo coot sem-w
,% i -r t!.Mwo thirds of theyo'.dne of such
' fruit .epresented in the referendum
. . i favor continuance. Ilowever, in NUCLEAR REGULATORY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE evaluatMg the merits of continuance COMMISSION -
' Agricultural Marketing Service s usus termination, the Secretary will not only consider the results of the 7 CFR Part 912 conti.tuence referendum but also other relevant Information concerning the U Grapefruit Grown In the India ) River g.here censing Stateofand/orNuclear Local Power Flante '
operation of the order and the reladve Olstrict in Flodda; Order Directin9 benefits and disdvantages to producera' 0 ' F Referendum Be Conductec!; han t'ers, and consumers in order to '0 pn in Oeiermination of Represenative detc amine whethe - 0,winued ( peration Pedo t-e74/"
- Counsel, U S. Nuclear Regulato y -
pi N. ~.
.nMars;IFdday,pq:
g lLs g '
- .,, n e ..l. #-.% G%a 7
?6
..t
'. Fede'ral hoststetTNol.'52' NE44 s,4987.- se -_ _.F, 21 wa -
.~n.s y w.
Commisstoa.Wa hington.DC 2045 't Power Station), C1J-oo-1'3,24 NRC 0FepjDasYmklichdah.ht.kN> b i Telephone-(202) 634-1465. 7 . n (1906).ne absence of State and locall,N wher, pates sadlocalgovernrients . t'
$UPPLEMtFT AnY NOW ATW: In
- governmental cooperation snakte it ., ynchoose riot'!o cooperate, especiallpafter '
August cf 1900, the Corranission .. more difficult for utility applicants to.r4y (plant has been substantially t.jm'o'n demonstrate complf ance with the baslo r .* constructed.Btgnificant policy qutitt promulgsted revised repletions planning and emergency planning standard, especially of equity and fairness are presented '. governing emergencfear power plantthat part of the standard which requires whers a utility ha s substantla!!r ' . .. preparedness at nut reasonable assurance that adequate completed construction and committed sites (see to CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part substantial resources to a nuclear plant
- 59. Appendix E). The need for protective measures "will be talen."
This la especJally onerous where a and then, aftee it is far too late ~ improvements had been demonstrated , realistically for the utility to reverse by the inadequate offsite response to the utility is powerless under applicable tourse, the State or local government cccident et the Three Mile Island plant State or locallow to itself implement all aspects of an offsite plan.Uus,in oposes the plant by non.cwoperation in in March of1979. Among other things, chsite emergency planning. A forced these regulations envisioned the actual practice, under the Commission's development of offsite emergency plans existing rules State or local gosernments abandonment of a completed nuclear may possibly veto full power operation, plant for which billions for douars have with the cooperatiott of State and loca] been invested also poses obvious governments in the vicinity of the even after the plant has been substantially completed, by choosing serious financial consequences to the
*esctor site. utility, ratepayers and taxpayers, The Commission's judgment that the not to cooperate.
As Indicated above, when the Finauy, at least in situations where non-new requirements were a reasonable cooperation in offsite emergency exercise of Commission authority was Commission's emergency planning requirements were upgraded in August planntng is motivated by safety issues, premised in part on the Commission's vesting State or local governments with belief that State endlocalgovernments of 19n the Commission believed that all affected State and local governments de facto veto authority ov er full power would coopeute in the development operation Is inconsistent with the and implementation of offsite plans. would continue to cooperate in emergency planning throughout the life fundamental thrust of the Atomic Energy Thus. In response to comments that the the Commisalon is given of the license. In the rulemaling proposed new emersency planning rules initiated by today's not!ce, the Act whereby/ure exclusive de authority to license would vest State and local governments Commission is considering explicitly nuclear power plants and to impose with de /cclo seto authority over plant radiol >gical safety requirements for operation the Comin!ssion responded what replatory approach it should follow La the future in the event that, thelt construction and operation. that "[t]he Comm!ssion belieses, based on the record created by the public contrary to the expectatienin August of ne second option under workshops, that State and local officials 19M a State or local government coulderation by this rulemaking would es partners in this undertaking will declines to cooperate in the be an amendment to the ComtrJssion's endeavor to provide fully for public development or trnplementation of an emergency planning regulations which protection." offsite emergency plan for whatever would preide more flexibility than do In the years since 19% offsite reason and, as a result, the Commission the exJeting regulations to deal with the emergency plans has e been completed may have difficulty finding. as required circumstance of non-cooperation.no end successfully esercised at nearly by existing regulations, that there is essence of this option would be a new es ery nuclear power plant site in the teasonable assurance that adequate subsection (e)of to CFR 247 to read as United States. In few cases, however, protecthe measures can ond wil/be foUows: State or local gos ernments has e not talen in the event of a radiological g,) g, e,,,;ngc , ,,, g,,,, , g,:3 p,,,, plan of e m ergency, ,g n tig g e,,, g,, , g,cgt, des eloped their own an offsite or cooperated emergengt..e ut21ity with Any consideration of possible changes r.otnithstan64 menempliance with other - in des eloping one. This lack of In the Commission's emergency plannin{ nqdre:r eats of tNs section and to CTR part ' cooperataon has es en occuned after the requirements must recognize one centraJ So, Appenda E la neocotep!!ance trise affected plant was substantially and sallent fact: Dat such a change e AsundaUy from a lack of prtic!pation in cons tructed. would not alter the Commission's th develcpme nt or Implementation of onsHe Existing regulations do not on their paramount obligation to assure public emegency planning ty a State orlocal face require operation license denial health and safety. For each tleense smewent and if th applicant - where Siate or local gove nments do not application, the Comm!ssion would dementratu to the Comm!n!on's remain obligated to determine that there sitafection tht:(t) ne eonarrphince cooperate in emergency planning. codd t e remeled or adequately Rather, they permit the Commission to is reascnable assurance that the public health and safety will be adequately corrpensated for. by reasonable state or local issue an operatinglicense despite g-mul coope ation;(2) aprlicant has deficiencies in emergency planning, protected. If the Commbston, for rade a good finh and sustained enort to provided the deficiencies are "not whateser reason, cannot find that the statutory standard has been met, then ebtita ti unntJon of th wasury significant." or that there are "adequate " 8 " ";(3I'FPU "t**U'U*"3"'7 interim compensating actions"(see 10 the license cannot be issued.
- CFR M47(c) 1) and (2)). Ilow es er, the in particu!ar, the Commission is ,' ',y,'[,'g' ,, gg existing rep ations also preide as a considering two options.He fint option are reuenstle and acAlevette under the baale standard in allcases that no would be to leave the ex! sting . c!rdmstances and which tak e Info accourit e operating license , , will be issued re gulations unchanged, nls eption "
1.hly Stata cr locai respoue to an schat [for a power reactor] unless a finding is presides one method to assure that ,meegener. ud B) oppucant he p'rouded made that there is reasonable assarance offsite emergency plans wt!! be t" copies of tu ef!stte plan to a!! goverr. ment. ' that adequate protective measure can adequate. Howeser, this option dependa 9 'wtJd would hve otherwise prticIpated in ' and willbe takenin the esent of a on the continued cooperation of State : its prepretien or implementatica ar.d hs . radiological e mergency," Long Is/ond and local governments in emergency usured thra tht it stands rudyio * ' Lighting Compony (Shoreham Nucleat planning and preparednees.De option coegrata abould thy clanga this positloa.
6982 Fed:ral' Register / Vd. 62, No 4'4 ),Frifa .IshhlM7epg%@6 _
. ,. .. ,,a. . . . ...#,.. . , .s .a
- I If this option were adopted, the : provls!ons are nof corisistent with the v.3 'lai1nf'-pa es a Commission espects that er. concept that ernergencyplann!r.g and n s y tts' e adjudicatory ncord would need to be - d!fes the ComrnisslooW preparedne:s an as important to safety :. resoM, for' futule, shich gtwe&y.
developed to substantiate a uu11ty's as such engineered safeguards as 1 cunderl nn! dairns that the preconditions for reactor containments or emergene core - approe) li should
'e~madani s'G! .' t ov.e relaih'elyS operation are fulfilledif anyinterested cooling systeme.%e Commission oes person or affected State or local inflexible one, that will requlte adequata '
not ordinarily pennit any extended - planning and preparedness with Utue oc.* sovemment claima, with reasonable grace period for a large power reactor to no concern for fairness or coet; or a specificity and basis, that they are not operate without these safeguards,or . note flexjble iiae that focuses on what - fulfilled. Moreover, the Commisuon allow a plant to operate for a significant, kindif accident mit!gatjen dose .- emphasizes that it would not be poselble period without these safeguards because reduction to the publ under this option to license a plam for of "harsh economic and social , accident) can be reasonably and ~ full power operation unless the
- consequences." Rather, these provisions feasibly accomp!!shed considering ollof applicant demonstrates that adequata reflect a different concept-that the circumstances. lf sound safety offsite emergency planning is achievable adequate ernergency planning and te ation requires the former, then co +
and all other aspects of the foregoing preparedness are needed and important, tu change la warranted. If the latter, criteria are satisfied.nl rulemaking is but that they represent an additional then a change would be in order for. lf intended only to address non. level of public protection that comes the fundamental philosophy or approach cooperation by responsible State or Into play only after all of the other of emersency planning is reasonable local governments:It does not provide a safety requirements for proper plant ar.d achievable dose reduction, this may remedy or excuse for other offsite design. quality construcuon. and careful, properly be understood in the sense of emergency planning problems, disciplined operation have been what le reasonable and feasible for the ne additional flexibility prodded by considered, and that therefore sorne utility to accomplish under aU of the such a rule would obviously minimize regulatory fle ubilit la warranted and circumstances,lacluding matters which the consequences from the lack of the costs associate with alternadve governmental cooperation in the are completely beyond the utility l: epproaches may be taken into account. control. developruent or implemention of offsite ne second more flexible emergency In the one licens case to date la e:nergency plans, ne rnore important planning concept or approach is also which this matter of ask emergency and dafficult question is whether or to reDected in consisterrt and repeated planning philoso y or approach has what extent these non safety Comm! sfon renouncement that the been considered. Commission has consequences should be a matter of fundamental hijosophy or approach of taken the view that underIAe existing concern to the Comm!ssion in setting emergency planning ts to aesure regulations an adequate pian must pre Ucensing emergency planning reasonable and achievable dose achjeve dose reductions in the event of requirernents, reduction should an accident occur. Eg., an accident that are generaDy ne Commission believcs that the long /s/ondlighting Company comparable with what might be 1900 rule and the Commission's (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), accomplished with governmental e xplanatlon of '.he basis and purmse for suptr.r Soul *rern California Edison cooperation. lens Island hting the 10M rule in the rule preamble (45 FR Compony(San Onofre) CLI-63-10,17 Company, supro. But, as th above WO2 August 19,1980)renect NRC 52.8. 513 (196). ne existing discussion males clear, anothat laconsistent concepts as to the proper emergency planning regulations does regulatory approach is possible which la place of offsite emergency planning and not require that plans achieve any pre. set out with option 2, and which focusea non safety costs in the NRC safety established minimum dose savings try on what la prudent and schjevable dose licensing program. On the one hand, the the es ent of an accident. For example, reduction taking into account lack of Commisalon stateid that the new approved emergency plans with fun governmentalcooperation. As noted requirementa, as weU as proper sitting State and local governmental ear!Ier, the standards in our ex] sting and engineered safety features, were cooperation have highly seriebte regulations contemplated governmer,tal needed to protect public health and evacuation time estimates ranging frorn safety. Taken in Isolatica, these coeperation in offsite ercergency' several hours to over ten hours and the planning and preparedness. staternents can be read as evidencing a projected dose savings for such plans Commission decision that emergency ne twes of measures.In addition to would very widely.nus the regulatlan those normaDy provided by the licenses, planning and preparedness as provided is inherently variable in effect and there to compensate for the lack of in those revised rules were to be treated are no bright.line, mandatory minimum cooperation in plannir4 by State and a s measures essential to safe operation projected dose savings or evacuation local governments would include: of nuclear facilities and therefore to be time limite: which could be view ed as (1) Added plans and procedures imposed rigorously without regard to performance standards for emergency detailing compensating rneasures; equity or cost. plans in the existing regulatjen. (2) Added personnel to accompany On the other hand, t',e Commission Moreover, the dose sasings achies ed by and advise State end local officials in an rejected an option in the rulemaking that implementation of an emergency plan a ctual ernergencyt . - . ' cc,uld have lead to automatic plant under adverse condittens. es, daring or (3) Facilities and eqdpment including shutdown if adequate plans were not following heavy snow, could be vehicJes, radios, tele ne and radiation f'. led because of commenters' concerns substantially less than under perfect monitors as required the plan;' a bout "unnecessanly harab econom!c and social consequences to State and cvuuns. nis variability is cons! stent < ( Spec [al tralning for persopnel - with a concept or approach to . ., Im local governmenta. utdities, and the emergency planning and preparedness5)' Arrangernents . -(p mentingincluding cornpensating formalized raes public." Operating plants were given that is flexible rather than rigid. i agreements and contracts fpe supporting
- s ery substantial grace periods to come In the Comm! sfon's view, the narrow' services; * - s-into compliance before shutdown would circumstance of non<ooperation by a N Mwf.G -
(e) Close communicati6n with... . be considered or ordered. Ttese State oc local government in emergency ' members of the publicin th'e, emergency
- . - Fed:ral R:g! ster / Vol. 52. No. 44 / Friday Mercn o, w 4.ne .-. m._. _
phnning tone (EPZ) to leep them '
- j. . .
represent wruld have much v .. .ne 13 logaln Muend erippvar SecdonY:rthfpd o ~%. bg "s :g Infznned cf the status and provisions for nothing to lose from cooperati:n. -W,h ' Appendix E, which turre .. ) Second, the Comm! salon be!! eve: that ' that the offette plin be fuly 4 .' rssponse: (7) Prodd;ng periodic notification of 1 State and local gov ernments which have',. ' btnenn! ally.'y. A '..t. ? State and lxalgovemment personnel of not coopersted in planning will carry . ', . %e pend.ency of tXIe pro .s is not - the details of the compensatory out their traditional public health and intended to affect any ons reviews safety roles and would therefore or hearings of emergency p Ing mea sures included in the plan, the respond to an accident.it is reasonable issues under existing regulatione, arrangernents in:luded for their involvement in the event of a real to expect that this response would including to CFR Sa12. - . .. emergency, and the availability of follow a comprehenalve uulity plan.. De Comm!ssion is currently pursuing training: and . Wird, the likelihood that State and the lessibility of additionalchangee to (8) Offsite exercises that demonstrate local govemments would cooperate may emergency planning requirements based - Implementation of the plan of the extent be bolstered by Title 111 of the Superfund . on the source term and severe accident ' fe a sible. Amendments and Reauthorization Act programs.ne proposa! made la this Comments are requested on these of 1988, which requires States to nouce le not based on either of these alternative approaches to emergency establish State amergency response programs. planning. He rule changes in option 2 commissions. The planning and Backfu Analysts are not dependent in any way on new notification regulrements enacted In that information about nuclear plant Act are based on the same philosophy %Is amendment does not impose' any accident searce terms, probabilistic risk adopted by the Commission in its own new requirements on production or assessments,or scientific studies of the emergency planning reguladons. In fact. utiltration facilities; tt only provides an risk reduction potential of emergency EPA's Chemical Emergency alternative method to meet the planning.* ne option would be based Preparedness Program is compatible In Commission's emergency planning , on the consideration of what should be many respects with the Commission's regulations.ne amendment therefore is the approriate underlying philosophy emergency response program, and EPA's not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.im and a or approach to emergency planning as a Interim Guidance issued in November backfit analysis is not required. prelicensing regulatory requltement--4 1985 (revision 1) specificall cross- paperwork Reductio'n'Act Statement considerat2on which is prompted by the references Commission an FEMA change in circumstances wbich have guidance on radiological emergency - %!s proposed rule amends - been experienced since the regulations response. (It should be noted, however, information coUection requirements that
.were pro: .u! gated in 19ao,1.e., the that the Superfund amendments do not are subject to the Paperwork Reduedon phenomenon, not then expected.of State require that Industrial facilities cease Act of 1990 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). %f e and local governments, refusing to operation if a State refuses to establish rule is being submitted to the Office of cooperate in emergency planning. the required State organization.) Since Management and Budget for review and the Superfund amendments regoire approvalof the paperwort =t~~
ne practical effects of Commission - adoption of option two-a rule change- States to establish emergency response requirements. era difficult to estimate, but the organizatjor.s, a change is posture Regulatory Mexibility Cart &ation Commlision believes that the les el of regarding cooperation in emergency public pectection associated with option planning for nuclear power plants may In accordance with the Regulatory two wou!d not be significantly different entail only small additional Mexibility Act of 1980,5 U.S.C. 005(b). from that provided by the current commitments of government resources. the Commission certifies that this rule regulations. First,if a plant began Moreover, since it will have been will not have a significant economic . operation under the circumstances established that adequate planning is impact upon a substantial number of permitted by the proposed regulation achtcvable, and a utility plan will have small entitles. no proposed rule applies change, and all administrative and been required which will include only to nuclear power plant 11censeen judicial remedies available to plant provisions for possible Stste and local which are electric utility companies opponents bas e been exhausted,it cooperation la the event of an accident, dominant In their service areas.nese seems re asonable to expect that the any interim period after commencernent licensees are not "smau entities? as set governments involved more likely than of plant operation during which non- forth in the Regulatory Mexibility Act not would change their position and cooperating governments may re- and do not meet the small business size cooperate in planning.The govemments evaluate their position may be short. standards set forth in Smau Business or otheri may dispute whether planning The time period is, moreover,largely Administration regulations In ts CFR is adequate,but it would seem fairly under the control of the governments. Part 121. Indisputable that the adequacy of a plan Not only may the governments uit of Subjects in l'0 CFR Part $05 with cuperadon will be enhanced accelerate their efforts to develop an relative :o a utility sponsored plan improved plan once the plant la Antitrust, Clas sified Information,'Flts without it. In these circurnstances, the licensed, but should the option 2 rule protection, Incorporation by reference, governments and the citizens they change be adopted by the Commission. Intergovernmentalrelations Nuclear it may be reasonable for State or local power plants and reactors Penalty. i u m 6 f.u. noct.., voi a .y. .r. governments whlch oppose plant Radiation protection, R4 tor siting. prey.ed .tch orfer s ester potectun of h operation to develop adequate , criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping . EeNOdea'INe .N"nI 'g c n& gent emer ncy plan Gat would p.+.y a , wwh en. ue. N need foe .w, t p only come into p ay should the Emitonmental plant be , Assenernent
, requirments,.*
and noding cu.wem of N n Acw eser sency pt.wes u s uo % ta IIceneed os er their objection. o No S@M EnvironmentalImpact - panc. ta se naem.bg uner. no ...wpon Since an offelte plan developed era nun.nir tera rue res.re,ts pc..MF without State or local cooperation is not na Commleslon hae determined under the National Environmental Polluy IEn"E ,$eI.IeNpEiNsM.N.e r, likely to be fully exercised,11is Act of 1909, as amended, and the i..e4 necessary in conjunction with optf on 2 l
0984
. Federal R:glst:r' /. WI, 52, No. 44' [pridAy75Ard[e,$Dir7pNedjdeIMM.%Q
. ~
> .~.
..r..<. e
.n ua,-
. Commission's regu!st!2ns in Subpart A , are tssued ender nc' te'th.c stat as .M .Fost tf 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule la not a ', a mended (u U S C 1201(b)k e i M10 (b) and, . seafissi j, om,Q,sfpf.eg, major Federal actlon significantly ',," (c) and 50.54 ari !ssved under sec,1611,84 affecting the quality of the burnan , Cm M M a Wr e .-
environment and therefore an Stat. 040, as amanded(42 Sepa,rateMay,go,mmff 1150 47(ek 50.SS(ek M50tbk 5010,50JL U.S s. . & C 2201(f)kl as4., pj, SecMory environmentalImpact statement is n~ot 50.72. 50.73, and 50.75 erg issued under sec. . As**Is!Ine mgaai.,54 @ i-required. He Cornmission ha s prepard telo,6e S1st.sso, se emended (42 U SC . in support of this finding. en Emergency planalns la essentielto 2 2 o 1(
- 11 and trw snvironmental a ssessment which is
- 1. Section 50.47 is amended by adding protect pubhc health active participallonof stateand and safety, local a vailable for inspection and copying, for governments in b planning process is a fee, at the NRC Pubhc Document a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
fundamental to adequate emergency Room,1717 H Street, NW , Wa shington, I 50.47 Emergency plane, f annjng. nese are the lessons we oc. . . . . . femmed f,om me nme me rsrand Regulatory Anal)sla (e) ne Commisslon mayissue full ac t, and s e te son the no Commission has repared a regulatory analysis for la regulation, P0}'g thstand n8 non mp lance Ith planntag rul s in 1980. Howon, one his analpis further examines the costa other requirements of this section and 10 lessons seem to have been forgotten by and benents of the proposed action and CFR Part 50, Appendix E if non- the
%present Commisslan.
e h In iniaproposing Mu a the alternatives considered by the comphance adus substantially from a Commission, ne analysis is available ac of pa " ' "'p nt d b N b WW for inspection and copylog, for a fee, at p]e ne on oft eme ecy emergency planning was relegated to a the NRC Public Docurnent Room,17t7 H planalng by a State or local government, osition of secondary importance Stree t, NW., Wa shington. DC. and if the app!! cant demonstrates to the g g g gy g Comrnission's sat! faction that: g ,, For the reasons set out in the preamble. and under the authority of the (1) The non comp!!ance could be proposal adows li' censing of a nuclear Atomic Energy Act of19% as amended, remedied, or adequately compensated power plant where there is absolutely the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, for by reasenable State or local no State or beal government e: amended. and 5 U.S C. 553. the governmental cooperation: partJcipa tion in emergency planning. Commission is considering whether it (2) Applicant has made a good faith ne Cornatulon thereby undermines should adopt the following amendments the very foundation npon width and sustained effort to obtain the 1310 CFR Part 50: e m ergency planning is ba s ed. Further, cooperation of the necessary the Comminion subedtutes for the PART 50-DOWEST)C UCENSING OF nquinments & MNahns a % PROOUCTION AND UT1UZATION (3] Appucant,s ffsite emergency plan efforta" standard of protection. De FACluTIES includes effective measures to Commisalon is thus w1!Ilng to accept a compensate for the lack of cooperation level of patection of the pubuc health
- 1. ne authority citallon for Part 50 which are reasonable and schlevable and safety which is lower than that continues to read as foDows: under the circumstances and which take afforded by the Comadesion's current A uthority: Seca. tot 103,104.105.161.1aa into account a likely State or local regulationa. I cannot support a rde 1s3 tea 1s. ea Stat. 836, s31,938. 948,953, naponse lo en actual emergency; and which sanctions such an esosion of the 954. 955,05e. a e amended. see. 234. 83 Stat. - (4) Applicant has provided copies of Commission's amergency planning 1244. a s a mended (42 03 C 2132. 2133. 2134. the offsite plan to n11 governments which requirementa. -
2135, 2001, 2232. 2233. 2236. 2239. 22a2h seca. Would have otherwise participated in its Nor can I support the Commission's 201, as amended. 202,2ne 88 Stat 1242. ss a mended, 1244.1246 (42 U S C 5841. 5842' preparation or implementaticn and has stated justification for this change--that astured them that it standa teady to . adhering to current stfety standards for Se tion 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95 cooperate should they change their emergency planning might impose oo1, sec lo. 92 Stat. 2951 (a2 US C M511 positjon. economlc costs on the utili!!es la casN Section 50 to also issued under secs.1o1.1&5, 3. In Appendix E. section Fis in which. absent state and local oo Stat. eso,955, as amended (42 U S C 2131. government participatjen, the amended by adding a new paragraph 6 2235); sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 US C. 43321. Sections 50 23,50 35, 50 55.50 56 to read ae follow 8: Commlssion is unable lo mske the public health and safety findings also issued under see.185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 Append 1 F.-Emergency I'tanalag and re
. US C 2:351 Sections 50 33a. 50.55a and Preparedness for Product 5an and 1.'tillsation % ese qui.ed by our current regulatiorra.
Appendix Q also lested under sec.1o2. Pub. pacilitfee adverse econornic consequences L 91-190, a3 Siat 853 (42 U.Sc. 4332). . . slmE IY cartnot serve as a Sections 50.34 and 5034 also issued under nladng the Comminion, a eafeyvalid basis for
- r. Trmining . . . tegulatiens and for abandoning the -
see. 204. 68 Sta t.1245 (42 US C 5844). Sectiorta 5038, Sost and 50 92 afso Inued 6. MsN gmmeental pardcipalion la an central elements of emergency planning. I under Pub. L 97-415. 90 Stat. 20r3 (42 US C oedse Is not required to the estent an In the face of the experience of nree J 2239). Section 5018 also inued under sec app!! cant or ficer:see re!'es upon to M So 47(e). In such cases. an percfse with Mile Island and more recently at 121 ea St at 939 (42 US C 2152). Sections so 80 through 50 et s!so Issved under sec.154. particlaptien by the efplicant or licar.see and Chernobyl, the Commisstop should be 64 Stal 954, se amended (42 U S C 2234). other cooperstmg gnernmental entitnes eeking ways to atrengthen our * . Section 50103 a!so issued under sec.106,68 shall be held. emergency planning reguitectents and to - Stat. 939, as amended (42 US C 2138k ,
' , , , . enhance state and local goittume'nt .
* "*I '
'3
& th do
, 4 3 lie separata view s of Cornmissionar ear acci e t. e s o e of th - '-
ror the purposes of sec. 252, e4 Sist. e5a, a s Anelsune Mom leesons of Chernobyl beinglearned by a rn:nded (42 U S C 22 3), il 50 to (a k (bt Dated at Wa shington. DC, tbts 2nd day of many European countries. and (c) 5a44. 50 48,50 44, so 54 and 50 exa) Ms.rd.1987. Unfortunate!y, by its action in propoolng
.Federalite}{ ster' / Vol. 54 No!44 /Mrida'y.' Madh;tG2987 LProide'd7RdclMkS#tS968 e..v- * . o w. . , . . i . ~ *
, this rde, the Comrniss!oc desconstritee emergency planning. Me Ocaml'ssiom$hc . ~.De este provideslot,a6 she that we to the United States are on the aclnowledged that it a propc4al b dew . compliance wfth NRC tequfnments ta opposite course, emergervy planrdng being as equivalent - these cases where the inabCity of,the 3;
. r '
g g"'I'###g " Ad' to, rsther thanprotection secondary to, sitLc3 Wp and; ', utility thetoresult meetofthe regslations is"t @' design in public departed nbetantially the fa! hire Prior to 1979 the Commfs sfon had frora the agency's aartier approach ta'ja . State and bcalgoveenments to'd * ' * ,, concluded thet siting of nucleat power emergency planning However,the W participate in the emsigency ple'nning - , plants coupled with the defmse in depth Comm!nion statedt process. N rule substitutes foe l approach to design of the farte was g complianca with the regulattens e %el
,e., g,pytj,, y ,
adequate to protect the pu te.ne NRC e fforta" sta ndard. no Commis slon ma y considered the probability of an us.oreWW h snwed s, of emts that ocaned et nree Wie talard license a plant where then le rMP accident with effsite consequences to be ne accJdent shswed deaily that the partidpation by State and local so low as to make emergency planning ;rotection prosided by siting and engineteed governrnents in emergency planrting. unnectssary. A: a result, there was littie eafety featuree east ta bo!stered by the ne utuity must instead submit its own planning by state and local suthoritlee abitay is tala protectis e a:nsuna der.s h plan for Commission approvs!. ne. to respond to en incident at a nuclear couru of an acddent. ne acddent alsa utility must have tried to obtain power plant. showed clearly that co eita conditJons and governmental cooperation, ne utility in Marth of1979 there was an actions, even tf they do not cause ognificant must have done the best it could la accident at the nice hiile Island plant off site radlofegical censequences, wiU affect developing a plan and measures to in Pennsylvania. There had been little the way various State and local entitin react compensate for lack of cooperation by planning by the state and local to protect the public from dange.e. rest o' government authorities given the gosernments responsible for dealing Im88med. anociated with the aeddent. A ( ^(I ion the Comminion dra w frcra this circumstances snd taking into account with the emergency, and the responsa artJc!pation of the State and local was confused. There were no ha c4 e a o a e procedures for coordination among l: ,
. g vernments in the case of an actual Commin;on cut be in a position to cw ernergency. And, the stility must provida various governments; there were no that off 4ite socrnmental plana have beca ceples of the plan to:esponsible cle.' lines of authority; there were no mviewed and found adequata. na clear procedures for or means to government entities, Commisaloo f;nda that the public can t4 ne' Commission states that it disseminate information; there were no protected within the framework of the clear procedures for determtmna teljeves this rule change wil! not Atomic hergy Act only if add;tiocal signficantly alter the level of protection whether to take protec'Jve act;on or how attention ta given to emergency rupen" provided to the public for several to carTy it out once it bad been decided planning (44 nt 731e9).
reasons:(1) Once the rule goes into em nt ess ntial to en effec i e Dus, the Comm!ssion found that effect, non participating governmenta emergency response existed. Because of emergency planning was essential to are likely to drop thelt objections and the c!isarray on the part of nearly protect the public and that : tate and tegin to cooperate with emergency es eryone involved in the response to the local participation in emergency planning because they will not longee nu accident, people living in the area planning was central to adequate cave any facentive to not coopersta. around the plant did not know what emergency preparedness. (2) State and local governments who information was accurate and did not 190 Emergency Mannirg Rule " ** ' i '
- 0 '""
nnow whether it was safe to stay in the carry out their responsibilitie s In the area or w hether to leave. Most people ne NRC's emergency planning rule eent of an actual emergancy, simply did whatever they thought best. has been in effect now for almost seven (3) Title ll! of the 1986 Superfund ne Comminion realized after this ) ears. In general,it has woried well. Armendments maka It more bhaly that esperience that improved advanc, State and local governments, the utilities State and local governments will planning was necessary to deal with and the Federal government have aD participate. sim:lar situations in the future.ne ng worked together to develop emergency 1.'nfortunately, the C$mmission's accident enade it clear that in the case of plans for most new and operating assertions are either irrelevant, an emergency with a potential for planta. How es er, there have been a few insafficient or based simply on wishful sign,ficant offsite radiation releases exceptions, ne State and local thinking.ne Commin!on's c ssertion there would be insufficient time during governments responsible for emergency that as a result of this proposed rule the course of an accident to make plans for two plants in particular have State and local governments will arrangements to protect the people tefused to submit emergency plans for suddenly see the light, drop all of their living around the plants. The approval or to participate in utility cblections and begin to cooperate seema Commission recognized that, even if planntna. Dese governments by to be based on not much more than there were no offsite releases, an refusing to participate are making it wishful thinking. ne Commisalon's eccident could affect wbat the state and difficult,if not impossible, for the third argument relies on the Superfund local governtnents did in an attempt to utilities to eseet NRC requirements and Amendments which are largely protect their citizens. For this reason, to get licenses to operate their plants. trrelevant to the issues he re. ne mers the Comm!ssion proposed a rule This state of affairs has proven fact that the States are required to requiring, as a condition oflicensing extremely frustratics for the e stablish emergency planning plants, that there be state and local Commission. ne State and local comrrJulons to deal with planning foe eme rgency response plans sufficient to gosernment positions in the se two cases chemical plants and the hke has little meet Commis-Mn requirernents. (44 FR have stretched out the licen Ing process - relevance to whether a State will give 75167). ne Comm!ssion exprenly for plants which the NRC Staff feels are up its oppos! tion to partichating in site-recognl ed that participationin planning otherwise afa to operste. ne . . specific emergency planning for a by :1 ate and local authorities and Commisston's proposed role is an efFod ' nucleer power plant. In fact,if anithIri coordination between the governments to break the logfam In these two the Superfund Amendments cut against and the !!censee was central to effective "hostage" p! ant ca ses, the Commission's argument.no
6986 fed:ral Redster'/.Vol, h No,"44 / Tridayl'MIthhhhb.kMNk-Nikk
.s... , ,
', _ -. "<o ar'nendments demonstrate Cortte v b:llel that State and local participation implementingit ne eo'le must* p'",
be.feve that they are el kept
.8Mh fnfe3n*c78) philosoplyls noth ng more _ ej,l, in emergency planning is essential ne accurately informed and at those Cornmission's pre 1980 philo's; atw Commisalon's second argument is its implementing the plan know what they., ' trappings. Since emerienef p!a ng ( t realism argument whjch is developed la cure detail in the Shorebom declelon, are doing. Otherwise, they are likely to will only be neces sary in the extrem fgnore Instructions and do what they un111ely event that another accident, leng Island Lighting Company think best to prot 4ct themselves sad occurs, it is, acc'erdlng to the . ...
(Shoreham Nuclear power Station, Unit their families. An off the cuff emergenc,y - Comm!selon.of only secondaiy ' 1), CL1-M-13,24 NRC 22 (1906). responn like that approved by the
- Importance.' However, the Commisslon Basicauy the theory Is that, even lf Commlesion in this rule in unlikely to - cites no new safety information to States and localities are refusing to engender the confidence necessary to support thle about. face.In fact the participate in the planning process, la ensure that the plan really works Comminton says that the rule is not the event of an actualemergency they adequately.
will carry out their responsibilitics and based on any source turn or severs ne proposed rule m!ght be less accident researth.no Commission for lack of a better coune will use the objectionable if it required the utility's plan. De Commission found in states specificauy that the rule change is Shoreham that such an ad hoc response Commluton to find that tellance only on not based on any finding that plants are a utility plan with no State and local safer now than they were in 1980 when by the governments could be sufficient participation would in fact provide a to protect the public- the present emergency planning rules revel of protection to the public which is wen Inued and w hen planning was In sisurning that the goverrenents will equivalent to an emergency In fact partictate and that they will use considered to be of primary importance the utiuty plan as a basis for their preparedness plan with fW) cooperation. to public protection. ne Comminton It does not even dt. that. Unca this does not dispute its 1980 conclusion that response to an emer.ency, the proposal, whether here is adequate State and local participation la the core of w think$ng ere is itt e,if anything. to support this belicf. Even if (h e ut ty c n ca nably h '[h#I$E
- d
' P "'l we accept the Comminion a accomplish given the lack of government obvious-that an eme#3ency response cooperation-a "best efforts" standard.: g' assumption, an ad hoc response by the ' E' hy 8 cons te n i is is his means that a plant may be licensed '
with the core of emergency planning I$" #k s$ u d o e up with only fundamental rece f of emergen phnning and clearfy:cannot provi7e the "'" 8' "[ * "M rdin
#*',7ble and where som oce Iece ofInformation that is different I"" ;0'I '"d** h I po r tective same level of protection as a plan with full cooperation would. An ad boc actions might no longer be available. " 80".rnments bas e refused to response means that there wiu be no ne Commission is willing to accept this coopnate e the emngency dads prep!anning by the governments, reduction in the level of protection of the procen. We ComminIn nys 6at in Public. 1980 f t did not expect that State and Officials will be forced either to localofficials would actually rtfuse to' improvise during an accident (something Rationalefor PmpcsedRule participate. Since there an now cases of which w e know did not work at ntT) or What justification does the noncooperstjon the mere fact that to attempt to carry out a plan with Co*nmission provide for its will ness governments have refused to participate which they are not familiar. ney will to accept a lower standard of pub 1ic justi$es waMng the central not have been tralned in the elements of the plan or their responsibilities, and protection? ne Commisalon asserts that r#qu!rements of the emergency planning ce alnly will not have rehearsed the proposed rule 1: necessary to put rule and accepting less protection for the
"' emergency planning back into its proper public. . . .
place in the regulatory scheme, ne ne Comtniss!on specifically co !!c ted ey must be in order to Commission decision on thb proposed recognized in 1950 the potential for anticipate the many different situations mk am unts to a repudiation of the governmentalinaction to affect that might occur during an accident and Commluiu s jqsment in W that opusbon of plants, and the Commlulon plan for them. Eser> one must be emergency planrung was just as specifically considered and rejected the familiar with the plan and his or her imp ttant as other safeguards like argument presented by some who responsibilities if these plans are to engineered safety features. ne commented on the rule that the rule work smoothly.nus training and Commission now argues that while should not be promulgated because of rehearsal are essential and the emergency planning is leportant,it is the possibility that inaction by local Commis ston's regulations recognize this. really ordy of secondary importance. gosernments m!ght affect the operation if a particular gosernment has not Acc r&ng to this arr.utent, because it le of some reactors. De Commisslor. participated in advance planning, none only "an additionalles el of pubhc responded to these commer! ters by of these fundamental pMecu n that comes into play only in stating that: will have been taken,and preparatory the steps the event that other safeguards fall, the governmental response will be less Commission can justifiably take a rnore
, ts ess;w of ne retes.uon of ewancy efrectJve. . f!nible spproach and walve emergency t Another element essential to an planning requirements if they cost too v.mo cef e,st in im se cwenion eno ede., w . p te.noec w much to implement. - e effective and efficient emergency respons e is that the local populace must 8,Fg,cQggff, fas teory carererswrrlarnina is tese -
have confidence in the plan and in thosg
- We sm Need de ComWon M!n la'. '- t ;ent to safety 6u osma%ed CtJ413 =bd stated cat $e ComirJeeton e UcfoNestett. dat e coentlecia certt The e niettra regulatona require dat e a edeqwate plaa Cowssloe onen pemides g+ece periods for e tf 6e tweminen's da not e Nici;ste. some s%st ecNene due redocuene generst?y copreble optsting p!a nts to come lato coephance with new outittee r.43 not have de lege;t audon'y to carryto Gose pes % voet a p!sa woh gotemir>ent ht una or deit plens. priicapcon te NRC s1M ee'ety requ!rerents An esce!1ec(entarle
*
- is Be r.it prolect.on ruls.
.m 6
+ a
- redaal. Resister l Vol. St. Nol44 [ FrideyNirdi ld9ef [ Prsde3d!JA$M,$$h .U 'essr:
- , u c.- pq. m_ w .
- s. M ha Cosetaalon betessa that the pote netl public to the event.cl na eccidest et QTf".Weshingllon e angige g& tea %m. ,g't restrict!on of p! ant operatloa b Stata arJ nucleat powor plant. State and localc';-) serVte Infortealion may be obtalud ' *.
- governtneal parth.jp atko.la Lla process, . fcose 6f tlais Attoep*ce PIAlAtarian - l b**j avat! b ' fe un)dee toesfrefrflejfcan pe t [enntle is essentlal to e,nsurg that. there willbe, . for Serdce ]k!!ettna,P.0L Box 1704, , .
an adequate emergency terponse and . DulleaInternetkeal Airpoet4st! . . reictor opcstlces sodt as sanks and land Wa shlagten. DC W41. Tale informa tions tes law s. certScation of putac couvenience opffmuna prolaction of the public,%e' . Commis 1on's proposal undetcuts both may be examined at the FAA,m t , + and ne<**say, Stsie fWeodal and toto of these principles.He rule chanp fe Northweal Mountain R ea.17906 . considantiene no CFR 50Rifa and F.derel facific iflghway Sooth, idec e nvirottaient at taws. (4517 55404). . based on the concept that emergency planning la of ortly accondary Washington, or the Seetile Akumit neCom 11aafon noted that a local Certification Of6ce,9010 East Maginal entity's support for emersescy planning importance--i concept whkh should' have been unthin.kable after ni! and Way South. Seattle, Wuhingtoa. was something that would have to t.: Chernobyl, and accepts the idea that an 7om runtwam tweomuAnon co*erAct: renewed periodically, but the emergency plan with abac4utely r.o state Ms. Judy Colder. Standardiration Commission belleved that State and Branch, ANM-113: telephone (:cel 471-and local participation Le edequate n.s local omela!s would work with the 19er. Malling add.rvse: FAA Northw eet Federal government and the utilitlee la long as the utility does the best it esa. Hat le simply nonsense.De Mountain Region.17900 Pacific IUghway plattning to protect the public.De Commission shoold not be willing to South. C-o6m, Se attie, Wohinghs Contmission recognized the potential that a State or local government could accept ordy best efforts solefy in on gates, by its inaction affect the operation of to solve the problem it has with twr surru utNT ARY LNFoRW Ay,o'C nuclear plants and decide that that was reactor licensing cases. ne Comm! should heed the old legal adage "Il Comments lodted not sumcient reason to alter the provisiont of the emergency plartning cases make bad faw." when considsung Interested etsons are favitedto ' rule. Yet r.ow, because the Commission whether to adopt a rule which walves participate In the making of the la confronted with two vcry difficult requirements important to pubhc proposed rule by submitting such cases, Seabrook and Shoreham, the protection in order to break the Icglam writu dah, views, or arguments as Commf salon is wGng to change the rule in those two cases, they may destre. Communications . and walve what it considered in 1980 to [FR Doc. s?-me Fded S-W; e 45 a rn) should identify the regu!ato docket be the core of adequate emergency sua eg.'e nHbar number and be submitted la ticate to planning. Obviously, the Commission's -
- the address specined above.
cornntitment to emergency planning ordy coremunicat!cna rece.tved on or befom lasts as long as it does not get in the DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATCH the cb date foe ccoments specified way of expeditious licensing of planta. abovew' be considered by tha Federal Aviation Administration Administrator befon taking action on Natrow Citrumstancesp the proposed rule.ha proposals ne Commisston afso attempts to 14 CFR Part 3g centeined trt thia Notica may be changed justify its rute change on the ground that in light of the ccmments rtcalved. All the change reatly only applies in ve'I (Doch*t No s7M4-10-AD) comments submf tied wG be aveilable, Altworthinese O(tectives; Brtilah both befon and after the ch'.ng data bons asfrho'n bee a e'y Aerospace BAC 1-11 Series Airplanes for comments. La the Rules Docket for important consideration. By allowirg a " * *I"' # *# W utiljty to sibstitute its bes' efforts for Aorwcy: Federal Aviation rmrt uma ead W u h Administ ation (FAA), DOT. State and local particgation'sin Yllbe in Ru-orYe e governmertsbns the 4 Acnoac Notice of proposed rulemaking $1s e e ( Dock et. . . . . cooperate.' Covernrnents. especially - local governrcents, have limited svuWARY: Win notice proposes to s&pt AvattabGity of NPRM ' i ' ' personnel and resources, and any a n altworthiness d;tective ( AD). I" * *' ' UNthis
^^Y P"' " *
- Y number of things on which to expend applicable to certain Model BAC 1-11 N tice of Prop sed Ru!emaking(NFRM) them. It is possible that in some cases series airplanes, that would require t
- these officials may choose to apply their eddy current and ultra sonic inspections k' .Y,,' , sogntnfi e of scarce resources to something other of the mainlanding gear support beam. the RegionalCoun.sel(Attentioru ANM-than emergency plarttting Li (manacle beams), and repair,if ^ orthtm Rule nonparticipation wiIl not affect necessary.This actionis prompted by a [ t o .N to-AD.179% Pacific eration of the plant.ne Contrnission report of the collapse of a right hand litshway S'outh. C-capca, Se atile, o{ould carefully consider this negative main landing gear in service, his failure W
e 3' " '8168. - impact before going forward with the has been attributed to stress correston proposed rule, cracking. Discussfon orm Comrcenta must be received no %e Urdted Kingdom Civu Aviation Conclurion Authority (CAA) has,in accordance later than Aprij M.1987 While I can anderstand the soontssts: Send comments on the with ex! sting provtslon 9f a bilateral . Commission's frustration in deating with attworthiness agreement, notified the the so-called "hostage" plant situation,I proposalin dupficate to the Federal . Aviation Administration, Northwest FAA of the collapse of a rig.1 band main cannot support this rule. Ernergency landing gear on a Model BAC1'-11 Mountain Region, Off!ce of the Regfonal planning is essential to protect the Counsel (Attentfore ANM-103), , airplane.De subsequent metallargh) Attention: Airworthiness Rules Doctet ' exarnination dieclosed that the landing No. 87-NM-14-AD.17900 paciEc gear suppoet beam (manacle bearn) had frTn. r.Nr ce,we etwo the tv L me liighway Seuth, C4E9Co, Seattle, suffered severe cading due to strese
.. . . -.. . .. ~. -. -.. . . _ _ - - . ... .-
i f i ! 1 l
- -l 1
a , t
- 4 i
i i
! i i
Document 8: ; i Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, !
) Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off-Site !
! Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants
~
) at the Operating License Review Stage Where_ { j State and/or Local Governments Decline To , i Participate in Off-Site Emergency Planning, ! ] 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078-87 (November 3,1987) j j i : i I 4 e e l, . h ] I I I f c ! I i 1 . l [ J t l I 3
! t
, i i
I 42078 Federd Register / Vol. 52, No. 212 / Tuesday. November 3.1967 / Rules and ReguiahtoEs.
- e. Maximum Sales Price Per Found %ere were also comments to the list of Bubjecte . , , ,a nere were a number of comments with efrect that sales by hobby crafters and u ..
f cgjg pg g . respect to the changes in the mohalt and handspirtners abould be considered ' wool price support regulations to ifmit sales throush "normal chartnels" for Commodity Cred[t Corporation. Price the amount of price support payments high quality wool We bellese this is a Support Program-4fohair. Reporting based on the sales price per pound for matter of semantics. While the point of and recordleep!ng requirements. mohair and wool. A number of the comment is true, sinc 4 only a small commentori objected to the deletion of y cyg pofy n73 the provision in i 1472.1507 which frecuon of all the wool marketedis sold to hobby crafters and handspinners, the Commodity Credit Corporation. Prke provided that a bona fide marketing was % normal channels" was intended to Support Program-Wool, Reporting and a "safe based on a reasonably appraised recordkeeping requiretnents. price for wool. nett comments suggest mean the traditional sales of wool made that the price support payments for their to large commerdal wool buyers. naal Rule speciality wool be based on the full free nors were also e mments enticiting Accordingly, the Interim rule market value of such speciality wool of the limitation of the amount of the sales published at 52 HL 4275 (February 11. the appraised price of such woolin the proceeds which would be eligible for 1987), which arcended 7 CDL Parts 1468 speciality market for such wool price support payrnents to four times the and 1472. is hereby adopted as a final The phrase "reasonable appraised national everage price ("four times rde without (J>ange. price of wrol"in { 1472.1507 and a rdel as bdng ufair. ne four he Authoritr Seca 4 and 5,82 StaL 10:% sa comparab:e phrase "fait market value tde was effective for the 1985 and 1986 smended (16 USC 714h 71Sc) secs. 702-toa, for mohair"in i 1468.10?(c) wer, marketings of mohair and wool. Under e4 Stat. 910-912, as amended l7 USC tr81-deleted because they were inconsistent the interim rde. the maximum sales trark provisions and also because they were price for which price support payments Sfsned at Washington DC on October 27, intended to present price support would be made is determined by g gg7, payments to be made where the sales DASCO at the end of each marketing price of the mohair or wool was y,,, g,ppi, year based on the national average Mig En ecurAv Vice hesidert, cernmodity substantially higher than the reasonable rnarket price and is an amount which appraised price of wool or the fair cmfit corporereoa, DASCO determine will encourage the (Ut Doc. 87-m32 FUed 11-2-e?,8 45 am] market value for mohair in the continued domestic production of wool tisditional wool or mohatt marketss a eca m e at prices fair to both producers and respectively. In such case the entire consumers in a manner which wodd - - - - - - sales price would have been ineligible for price support paymenta. How ever. assure a viable domestic mohair and woolindustry. NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY these provisions were deleted because CCC/USDA did not wish to reake the As indicated earlier, the Coc:ptteller ent:re : ales proceeds of wool and General of the United States reviewed 10 CFR Part 50 mohalt sold to hobby crafters, hand. the interim rule and concluded that a ers, and sicular indhiduals CCC/USDA had authority to limit the Evaluation of the Adequacy of Off.$te gi or price support pa)ments. amount of the sales price per pound on Emergeocy Planning for Nuclear Another cctnment urged that smce the which price scpport papents wodd be Power Plante at the Operettng Uoense premium prices received by the made. na Comptroller General stated Review Stage Where State and/or producers on sales of high quality wool h 6 Wool Act the Local Governmente Doctine To to hobby crafters and handspu',ners Secretary can set the amounts, terms, Participate in Off.Sto Emergency have been used to calculate the nationaj and conditions of price tupport Planning as erage pnce for wool, the same cperations, he had the authonry to Aopecy: U.S. NucJear Regulatory premium pnce should be used to establish price support payment Cocan!s aloa. calculate the wool price support limitations to prevent abuses, based en gog yt3,3,g,, payment. He premium pnces for high the reasonably appraised prices for quality wcol are included in the wool. suuu Amy: ne Nuclear Regulatory determination of the national everage ne final rule proddes that the Commission is amending its rules to market price which is determined by effect!ve date will be retroacthe to the provide criteria for the evaluation at the taking the aserage weighted market operating license review stage of utility. dates the 19&5 amendments were made price of all wool sold by producers. to the mohair and wool price support prepared emergency plans in situations Section 704 of the Wool Act provides regulations: Noumber 14.1985 and in which state and/or local governmects that the price support payments shall be decline to participate further in August 23,19&5, respectively, it la such as the Secretary of Agriculture emergency planning. ne rule la necessary that the interim rule be made determines to be suulelent when added consistect with the approach adoptsd by to the national average price to equal eUecHve retroactively in order to nulli.fy the uninteaded effects of the 1985 Congress in section 109 of the NRC the price support level for wool.nl amendments with respect to the Authorizade Act ofim M L W amount expressed in percentage is 295, described in the Conference Report applied against the producer sales price eligibility of certain producers to receive pnce support paImenta who would on that statute (H 96-1070. June 4,1980), to determine the twice re-enacted by the Congress (in doe the producer. nts price support percentage la payment therwise not be eligible for price Pub. L 97-415. jan. 4.1963, and Pub.1 applicable to all sale: of woolifowever, eupport payets. De n'troacun 96-553, Oct. 30,1984), and fo!! awed in a the interim rule would apply the apphcauen will not affect oth" prior adjudJcatory decision of the ; percentage to each sales price up to the producers whe were otherwise eligible for price support payments. Commission,las h/ondusMas Co i maxim >m : ales price determined by (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statiott Urut DASCO for , eh marketing year. 1) CU-46-13,24 NRC 22 (1966). ne rule
mwammiske / Vol. 52. Na 212 / Tusd
. Nm. ember 3.19G7 / Rules and Regulellons .- 42079 recognises that though stato and local by Se Commisuon with regard to participation in emergency planning is emergency planning. In section 109 hehty desirabb and indeed is essential the Congress s(b)(1)(B)(i)(ll). howeser.
et out a second opUon: for masimum effectiveness of The backdrop fer the actions t sken by the Congress and the Commission in "In the absence of a plan which satisfies emergency planning and preparedness. the requirements of subclause (!), there Congress did not intend that the 1%0 was of course, the 1979 accident at absence of such participation should Three %1e Island. The accident changed esists a State local,orutdity plan the NRC s regulatory approach to which presides reasonable assurance preclude hcensing of substantially that public hesith and safety is not completed nuclear power plants where radiological emergency planning. Defore the accident, emergency planning endangered by nperation of the facihty there is a u'ihty prepared emergency concerned."(Emphasis added.)In plan that provides reasonab!e assurance receis ed relatisely hitle attent!on from addition, section 109 presided that the of adequate protection to the public, nuclear regulators. The preva.lmg assumption was that er sincered safety Commission's determination under the ErrtcTivt CAf t: December 3.1987. features in nuclear power plants, first but not the second of the two FOR FURTHER INFonMafioN CONTaCf; upled wdh scund operahon and options could be made "only in P. ter C. Crane. Office of the General *',"'8[n$. p'j[r *n "" ' consultation with the Director of the R g g wou e ct Federal Emergency Nianagement Co;ns a shington. DC needed. At that time only n hmited 8[,"' '
.stichael' T Jamsochian. a Ofrice"V8 of W86 " U8 '.I' " "I "CF PI'""I"8 c; [cf;on'3h(h'[B)(ii). The Nuclear Regulatory Research. USNRC, ssues took place in the pre censtruction statute further directed the Commission I
Wa shintton. DC 00555.301-441-7657. review of apphcations to budd nuclear
- bl"h bY #"le * * * ' "ha ni' l t Dasid B. hiatthew s. Office of Nuclear E "# E ants' The Three Alile Island enc urage and assist States to comply Reactor Regulation. tJSN RC. as opeditiously as practicable" with Wash mgron. DC 20S53. 30149:44?. h' nnt ed o heg) w de pr d g the NRC s standards for State suPPLt uts ta n y IN rom ua' ion- Subsutute for a well built. a el! tun, and radiological emergency response plans.
1)iscussio well regulated nuclear power plant, a Section 109(b)();1C). substantial upgradmg of the rcle of The Conference Report on the On htarch 6.1937. the NRC pubbshed emergency planning w as necessary if legisla tion. II. 96-1070 (june 4,1980) its notice of proposed rulemakmg in the the pdl;c heahh and safety were to be esplained in clear terms at p. 27. the Federal Register, at 52 FR 0980. The adequately protected.. rationale for the two. tiered approach: pened for public comment (to de s- The Commission issued an ads ance "The conferees sought to asoid subsequently estended for an additional nonce of proposed ruterrak ngin July 30 de s) espired on June 4.1987. 1979. and in September nnd December of penali Ing an applicant for an operating The preposed rule drew an beense if a State or locality does not the same year it issued proposed unprecedentedly larse number of sub nit an emergency response plan to emersenry planning rules 44 FR 54306 ISeptember 19.1979h 44 FR 75167 the NRC for review or if the submitted i omments Scme 11.5m mdividual plan does not satisfy all the guidelines b tiers were sent to NRC. as well as tDecember 19.1979). Before the
- 7. coo mdnidaall) signed fctm letters Commission tock f;nal action on the or rules. In the absence of a State or rules howeser. the Congress took !ocal plan that complies with the vnt to Congress or the White House guidelines or rules the compromise nnd forwarded to NPC. Approsimately action writmg emergency planning ,
14300 persons signeo retinces to the prosisions mio the NRC Authonsabon permits NRC to issue an operating NRC. Es ery comment was read. Act for fiscal year 19m Pub. L No. 96- hcense if it determines that a State, local including form letters, w hich wert 095. It is estremely irr;.ortant to focus on or utihty plan, such as the emergency esammed one by cne so that any what the Coriress did m that Act. preparedness p!an submitted by the because Congres( actions were the applicant, provides reasonable mdndual messages added by the start; g point for a!! the NRC did .ssurance that the pubbe health and s er atunes eculd be taken into accos.nt. safe ty is not endangered by operation of NRC attempted to send cards cf subsequently in the emerFency plannmg acknowlcogment to each commenter. area. as the wntten record makes clear. the facihty"(Emphasis added ) 1he sheer solume of the comments Section 109 of the NRC Authenzatinn The statute, which was enacted en recen ed makes it clearly impracticable Act directed the Comm:ssicn to p e 30.19m and the Conference F eport to discuss them mdisiduall) As a result. c stabbsh replauens maimg the r ake abundantly clear that in Congress' the followmg discussion will focus on esistence of an adequata emergency uew, the ideal situa tion wa s one in the principalissues raised m the plan a prerequisite for issuance of an w hich there is a state or local plan that comrnents. yperatmg license to a nuclear facibly. rieus di NRC standards. !! is generally hsue 1. Is the proposed rule legal? The NRC was further di:ected to dect that in Congress'siew, there could Specifically. ls it in accord with the promulgate standards for state be emergency planning under a utiIity language and legislatise history of the radiological response plsns. plan that to some degree fell short of the emergency planning provisions enacted in the same sect;on of the 1480 Act. ideal but was nevertheless adequate to by the Congress in 1080? Congress spec.f.ed the conditions under pr tect the health and safety of the An.mcr Yet The intent of the w hich the Commission eculd issue pubbe. proposed rule, as clanfied in operating licenses. and in duirg so, it That Congressional judgment was Conimission testmony and in other made clear its preferences w nh regard before the Commission when it responses to the Cergress. is to sis e to state and local partici;ation. Its first preference. reficcted in sect:on considered final emergerfcy planning effect to the Congresis 1940 rules only a few weeks later, and the o mptern;se approach to emergercy to9(b)(1)(Di(')ll). is for a ' State or local Commission took paina to make elest on p'anning. not Fo be>ond it. To esplein rad;clogical c mergency respense plan the record that it was fo!!owing the Ws requi:es a sem w hat detailed w hich provides for respond:ng to any Congress' approach. As the Commission d4csssion of the background of tho r. diological emergancy at the facility i n:crred and whhh cen pres with the atated in its notice of final rulerraking,
- a. uuns taken in 1080 by Congress and pubbshed on A.. gust 19.1960. at 45 FR Commission's s'andards fcr si.ch plans." 53400
- - - ~ - - - -
c - -- __ __ __ -
42080 Federal Registee / Vol 52, No. 212 / Tuesday. Novsmbee 3,19s7 / Rder end Regdatio Finally. on luly 23.1m. W the Anal however,it is apparent that the Comminion consideration of these rules. the governestatal coopersfion (the abhtyj ' Commission was bnefed by the General Commission did no such thing. Rather, has encountered great dsfficulty Counsel on the substance of conversations the Commission was acknowledging the complying with allof thoe detoded wah Congress onal staff members who were fact that under the approach it w as planning standards." 22 NRC 22. 29. The taking, the action (or inaction) of a state Commission noted, howes er that its Ai a n Ac fo fca ear . Pub, L or locality had the potential to affect the emergency planning rules were intended No. wm ne ceneral Counsel addsed the operation of nuclear power plants, smee Commission that the NRC final rules were state and local non participation would to be Gesible. and that a atihty plan consistent woh that Act. ne Commasfon clearly make it more difficult for an will pass muster under 10 CFR 50.4F(c) has rebed on all of the above information in apphcant to demonstrate the adequacy "notwithstanding noncompliance with its consideration of these finalnales In of emergency planning. It is worth the NRC's detailed planning standards addition. the Commission directs that the * * * (1)if the defects are 'not transcripts of these trieetings shall be part of emphasizing the word "polential"in the quoted passage. It indicates thet the significant';(2) tf there are ' adequate the administratn e record in th4s rulernaking. interim compensating actions'; or (3)if In addition,in a key portion of the Commission belies ed that in some there ars 'other compelhng reasons.'" rule, dealing with the question of cases. state and local action or inaction might base the effect of retaricting plant The Coramission added: "The decis'ons whether NRC should automatically shot below focus on (1) and (2) and we do down nuclear plants in the absence of operation. while in other cases it would !.kewise." an NRC approsed state or local not. In other words, the Commission foresaw a case.by. case evaluation, with The Commission then explained that emergency plan. or should instead the "measure of significance under (1) esaluate all the reles ant circumstances the result not foreordained either in the and adequacy under 2 direction of plaht operation or of befoce deciding on remedial action. the shutdown. Clearly, neither the fundamental emergen(cy)is planrung the NRC again esplicitly followed the standard of i 50 4?(a) tha t 'no opera ting Commission nor the Congress Congress' lead. In determining what license * *
- will be issued unless a action to take, the Commissron said,it ensisioned that state or local non- f:nding is made by NRC that there is would look at the significance of participation should automatically bar reasonable assurance that adequate deficiencies m emergency planning. the plant operation without further inquiry. protectise measures can and will be The mechanism adopted by the availabibly of compensating measures. takenin the esent of a radiological Commission for implemenung the two-and any compelhng reasons arguing in tiered approach was set forth in 10 CFR emergency / " The "root questiors" the favor of conunued operahon.10 CFR Commission said. was whether a utibly 50.4?(c). The Commission explained: 50.47 of the Commission's regulations.
plan "can preside for 'ade "nis interpretation is consistent with For the first tier, sixteen planning protective measures * * *quau standards for a state or local emergency in tl.e es ent the provisions of the NRC Authoritation of a radiologicalemergency/' To plan were spelled out in 10 CFR Act for fiscal year 1980. Pub L 90-295." answer that questiors the Commission 45 FR 55401 Thus in deciding that the 50 47(b)(1-161 of the Commission's regulanons. ne second tier. by centrast, continued. requires recognition of the lack of an approsed state or local plan fact that emergency planning should not be grounds for automatic was dealt with in a brief and unspecific prosisiort.10 CFR 50.47(c)(1): requirements do not have fised critena. shutdown of a nuclear power plant. the such as prescribed esacuation times or Commission espressly declared itself to Foture to meet the lte app 5 cable radiation dose easings, but rather aim at be following the statutory approach. candards set fonh en par)maph (bl ef this section may result in the Commission ~ reasonable and feasible dose reduchon This background sheds considerable t.nder the carcumstances," 24 NRC 22. 30. light on a passage from the Federal dechning to issue an operauns beense: howeser. the appbcant will hase an Thus the Commission is already on Register notice which some commenters orPo'tunity lo demenstrate to the sat:sfaction record as believing itself legally l saw as indication 1 hat the Commission of the Ccrnminion ihat deficiencies in the gig g g g g92gY g , consciously, decided in 1980 that states alans are not significant for the plant in and locahties should have the power to heum dat adepte inter m ce,cemateglocal utihty plan in a situation of state and/or non panicipahon in emergency esercise a seto eser nuclear power plant achons boe been or will be ia ken promptly. p'anning lakewise,it is on record as operation. The Commission said: or that the*e are other compelbrg reoons to perm.t plant operabon. be!;eung that the esaluahon of a utility Th Commiseen recegnaes that there is a plan takes place in the contest of the possibitty that the operabon of some In a 1986 decision. the Commission esernding obhganon that no hcense can reactors may be affected by this rule through declared that in a situation in which be issued unless the emergency plan is state and local authonties decime to It ry pfy wit eseNe e participate in emergency planning. the fr.nd to proude reasonable assurance of adequate protechte rneasures in an Commission beheses that the potenoat NRC has the authority and the legal restriction of plant operahon by State end emergency.The Commission believes obligation to consider a utihty plan and that the planning standards of 10 CFR tocal ofDcials is not signihcantly different in render a judgment on the adequacy of kind and effect from the rneans already emergency planning and preparedness. 50 tilb). which are used to evaluate a as aitabte to prohibit reactor operatiort . . Lorg Is/crid Lighfing Co. IShoreham state or local plart. also proude an Relatne in apptpr appropriale framework to evaluate a prachce. howeser g this rute in actual Nuclear Power Stahon. Unit 1). CU-66, the Corrmiss:on need not 13, ;4 NRC 22. The Commission unhty plan. Therefore the new rule shut down a facitty unnt all factors ha'e proudes for the first time that where a been moroghty esamined. obsersed in L/LCO that the emergency unhty plan is submitted. in a situation of 45 FR 55404. (Emphasis added.) planning standards of10 CFR 50 47(b)~ 8 the regulation which establishes the 16 vate anc /or local non parncipation in it has been argued that the language planning standaids by which a state and emergency planning,it will be evaluated just quoted indicates that the for adequacyagainst the same local plan Is to be measured "are Commission made a conscious decision premised on a high tesel of coordination standards used to evaluate a state or in 1980 to allow states and locahties to local plart flowever. due allowance mit between the utility and State and local exercise a velo power oser completed be made both for the non.pa rticipauon nuclear pow er plants. Seen in contest, gosernments." so that "li)t should come olihe state and/oe local governemental as no surprise that without av. hor ties and for the compensatory
. ~ - . _ , . , ,,__..y_. -
hderal Resister / Vol. 52. No. 212 / Tu'esday, Nosembd 3.196/ /1Eufes aWI R'ehful$s lioit measures proposed by the utilityin depend on the record developed in a reaching a determination whether there and engineered design features are specific adjudication, the results of neededte protect the health and safety is "reasonabte assurance that adequate w hich would be subject to multiple protective measures can and will be of the public."(Ernphasis added) 45 Dt ta k en." levels of resiew within the Commission $5403. lte Commission also esplained as well as to review in the courts. that in light of the nree Mile Island To sum up therefore, the rule is in 1 accord with legal requirements for Issue #4:!: state or local participation accident it had become "clear that the essential for the NRC to determine that protection prooded by siting and emergency planning at nuclear pow er there will be adequate protection of the i plants because: engineered design features must be public health and safety? bolstered by the ability to take
-The rule le consistent with section 109 We do not hase a basis at this time. protective measures during the course of of the NRC Authorization Act of 1980, for determining generically whether state and local participation in an accident."/d. %ough the word a measure which has twice reenacted "bolstered
- suagests that the by the Co. gress, though it has since emergency planning is essential for NRC espired. In addition. the flouse of Commission of1990 viewed emergency to determine that there will be adequate planning as a backstop for other means Representstives recently rejected an pr tection of the public health and of public protection rather than as of amendment designed to bar safety. Dere has )et to be a Gnal equalimportance to them. the inue implementation of the rule for two adjudicatory determination in any specine plants. cannot be resobed definitively by proceeding on the adequacy of a utility microscopic analysis of the particular
-The rVe is ccnsistent with esisting plan where state and local governmental words chosen in 1980.
NRC resu:ations. and is well within authorities decline to participate in NRC's rulemaking authonty, emergency planning Clearly. it will be More relevant to the task of
-Since the r.:!c prosides for no m te dimcuh for a utility to satisfy the ascertaining the Intent of the 1980 diminution of public protection from NRC of the adequacy ofits plan in the rulemaking is the regulatory structure what was ;rouded under custing dD5'"C' I. ate and local participation. established under the 1980 rules. In 10 regulations. it cannot be in but whether it would be impossible CFR 50.54ts)(21tii). the Commission contrasent on of any statutory $' b a at provided that if it "finds that the state of requireme .ts governing the lesel of C css pr g 9nda emergency preparedness does not NRC safety standards. C provide reasonable assurance that
/ssw :2 ts this a generic rule.or is '" U n '[c' [9 ~ [ .
adequate protective measures c.sn and will be taken in the esen this proposal really aimed at the subsequent Authorization Acts) Shoreha n and Seabrook plants? indicates that Congress beliesed that it radiological emergency and ,t of,a if she The nJe is generic in the sense that it was at least possible in some cases for a d',II#I'U CI * * ' "* I C** CI'd w thin four monthsof that finding. the is of general applicability and future utility plan to be found to proside effect. ccserng future plants as well as reasonable assurance that public Commission will determine whether the custing ;! ants. At present. howeser, health and safety is not endangered by reactor shall be shut down until such there are on:y two plac.'s with pending operation of the facility concerned."in deficiencies are remedied or whether crerating beense appheations for w hich the words of the "second tier" provided ther enforcement action is , state ano/or local non participation is in section 109. appropriate."In oder wod, a plant an issue. Th:se plants are Shoreham issue ri ls emergency planning as ordinardy may operate for at least four and Seatrocm. The NRC's 1960 rules, important to safety as proper plant months with danciencies in emergency perhaps beca.se of optimism that states des >gn and operation? planning before the NRC is required First of all, this issue does not hase to even to decide whether remedial action and locahties would alwa): choose to be partners .n emergenc) planntag. be addressed in the contest of the final should be taken. This approach. the included on!3 a general prousion.10 rule announced in this notice. since the Comm:ssion said in the Supplernentary CFR 50 47c!. deahng with cases in present rule invols es no redrawing by Information to the 1960 rule, was which utates are unable to satisfy the NRC cf the balance between emergency consistent with section 109 of the NRC standards fer state and local emergency planning and other provisions fer the Authorization Act of 1980. 45 TR 55407 plans. and ha d no spectfic discussion of protection of health and safety. ilaving At the time that the Cornmission created the esaluaticn of a utility plan in cases said that.we turn to the question of the the so. called "1& day clock" for of state or local non participation. This place of emergency planning in the deficencies in emergency planning,it oserall regulatory scheme for the w as settled Commission law (and does r.ot mean that the NRC was compel!ed to adopt new regulations in prctection of public health snd safety, remains so today) that the NRC must Though the Commission in its 1980 issue an order directing a licensee to order to act en the Shoreham and rulemaking esplicitly described Seabrook ficense applications. On the show cause why its license should not contrary, the NRC has always had the emergene) planning as "essential"itis be modified. revoked or suspended less clear what importance the wheneser it concludes that "substantial option of pre : ceding by case.by. case adjudication under its 1930 regulations. Commission assigned to emergency health or safety issues hab e] been
/ssue =1 Wi!) this rute assure licenses planning. as compared to the importance raised" about the activities authorized to the Sh:reham and Seabrock ptants? accorded to other means of protecting by the license. Consolidated Edison public health and safety, notably sound Companyo/New rorA (Indian Point.
It will not a ssure a license to any siting design. and operation. In the particular p!a nt or plants. It will Units No. l. 2 and 3). CL!-75-8,2 NRC Supplementary information esplaining 173.176. That standard w'as endorsed by establish a framework in which a utility the 1980 rulemaking. the Commission seeking an operating license can, in a the Court of Appeals for the District of stated that "adequate emergency Columbia Circuit in Porter County case of state and/or local non. preparedness is an essenflol espect in participation. attempt to demonstrate to Chapter of the Isock Wollon league v. the protection of the public health and the NRC that emergency planningis . In the context adequate. Whether a utihty could safety." 55 m 55404. and commented NRC. 606 F.2d of that standard, 1363 (1978) day the 23 clock that "onsite and offsite emergency prosisjon for emergency planning succeed in esking that showing would preparedners as well as proper siting deficiencies amounta to a Comnussion l 4
i t 42062 Federal Resister l Vcl. 52, N:. 212 / Tuesday, Novernber 3. Na7 /. Rules'an . sd Regulatl ~ns
.a e -
e.+,- findin daysesg en that, at least a ma}or for inthe first i20 deficiency local May (a)NRC assume that the state or response will be in accordand a timely with theof rebutted proffer an adequate and by, for exa em:rgency planning does not utility plant feasible state or locat radiological automat:cally raise a "substantial health (b) May NRC assume that the state or response plan which would in fict be er safety issue" with regard to plant local response will be adequate? relied upon in en emergency. ne opstation. By contrast, a major safety (c)If the NRC rule calls for reliance on ore:Iding Ucensing Board should not deficiency relating to emergency FDtA. and stA says that it can't hesitate to reject any claim that state conditions-for example, the judge emergency planning except when and local officials will refuse to act to availabibty of the emergency cor, there is state and local participation In safeguard the health and safety of the cooling system-would warrant an esercise, how can the NRC eser public in the event of an actual immediate shutdown. make a judgment on emergency emergency. In actual emergencies, state. In surn, despite language indicating planning in a situation in which state local, and federal officials have that emergency planning was and local authorities do not participate? invariably done their utmost to protect t "essential," the Commission in 1980 in this rule. the Comm[ssion adheres the citizenry, as two hundred years of
* ' * '""^
created a regulatory structure in which h, ,[;, nn Isfond ti g Arnerican history emply demonstrates. emergency planning was treated At the present time, the Commission somewhat differently,in terms of the Co. (Shoreham Nuclest power Station. Unit 1). CU46-13,24 NRC 22 which does not hase a basis in its adjudicatory correctis e actions to be taken when esperience to judge either that a utility deficiencies are identified, from the holds that in an actual emergency state and local govenunental authorities will plan would be adequate in every case or engineered safety features ("hardware") that it would be inadequate in every that would be relied on in an emergency, act to protect their citizenry, and that it case. !mplementation of this rule may is appropriate for the NRC to take
/ssue =Sc Assuming that NRC should ultimately provide that informational account of that self-evident fact in consider a utility plan, what entena evaluating the adequacy of a utility's basis. ,
should appl >? In particulan emergency plan.The NRC's realism The problem of how the NRC can (a) Should the utility plan preside just doctrir.e is grounded squarely in decide the adequacy of emergency es much protection as a state or local common sense. As the Commission planning in the face of stA's declared plan. or may less protection be stated in L/LCO. even where state and reluctance to make judpents on adequate? local officials "deny they eser would or emergency planning in cases of state (b) If lesa protection may be adequate, could cooperate with (a utility] either and local non participation does not must NRC still find reasonable before or even during an accident." the appear insoluble. nough FEMA has assurance that under the utility plan. NRC "simply cannot accept these expressed its reluctance to make adequate protective measures can and statements at face value." 24 NRC 22,29 judgments in such circumstances, w ill be taken? Or is it sufficient for NRC fn. 9. It would be irrational for anyone to because of the degree of conjecture that to find that the totahty of the risk. suppose that in a real radiological would in FEMA's view be called for, we including all relevant factors. including emergency, state and local public do not interpret its positien as one of ths likelhood of an accident, assures officials would refuse to do what they refusal to apply its expertise to the that there is adequate protection cf have alws): done in the event of evaluation of a utthty plan.For FEMA to pubhc health and safetyt emergencies of all kinds: do their best to engage in the evaluation of a utility plan Under the rule adopted in this notice, help protect the effected public. D' would necessitate no retreat from its
# ##I"D C# d'#I8I'" stated view that it is highly desirable to a
to utilityle provt re,asonable assurance that-lan inchded to pass the rnuster.is observatio]n,,required at in have, en fer each nuclear power plant, a
*'#Id e n t. , s ot ed ate protective measures can and
,eun,y f ], ir ciude tfli ng *' I*# *I N'" ** 'I'
- will e taken in an emergency.ne rule I"#8I *' #5'" " ' * "I"
- I recognites-as did Congress when it the utility's plan as "the best source for E planning,"including emergency 1 enacted and re enacted the prosisions of emergency planning informati n and pu ns. u 22. Os rule team exercises. (ne Cornmission shares that Section 109 of the NRC Authonzation It to slew } FBtA's advice would s t Act of 1Nthat no utility plan is hiely g ,, , , e, t sta an o I undoubtedly include identification of to be ab:e to provide the same degree of officials would take. However, the areas in which judrnents are public protection that would obtain r.ecessarily coniectural, and NRC's rulemaking record strongly supports the j under ideal conditions.1 e. a state or proposition that state and local oserell judgment on whether a utility's lxal pla n with full state and local plan is adequate would in turn have to 1
participat,on, but that it may governments believe that a planned response is preferable to an ad hoc one, take account of the uncertainties neverthe!ess be adequate.ne rule included in FDtA's judgment. Beyond a starts ficm the premise that accidents nerefore it is only reasonable to suppose that in the event of a mtain point. uncertainty as to can hap;en, and that at es ery plant- radiological emergency, state and local underlying facts would plainly make a adequate emergency planning measures positis e finding on "reasonable are needed to protect the public in the officials. in the absence of a state or local radiological emergeccy plan a s surance" incre a singly difficult. These event at accident occurs. Whether in approved by state and local are issues, however, w hich cen be f act a particular utility plan will be gosernments, will eitherlook to the addressed in the case by case i found adequate would be a matter for l util ty and its plan for guidance or will adjudications en individual fact specific ; a djudica tion it individual licensing follow some other plan thu exists.Thus situations. It should be noted that while - proceedige. the presiding IJcensing Board may the rule makes clear that ultimate
/ssue e May NRC assume that a presume that state and local decisional authority resides with NRC. it state or local gos ernment which refuses governmental authonties willlook to the does ensislon a role for TEMA in the to cooperate in emergency planning will utility for guidance and generally follow evaluation of utility plans, although ;
still res;<nd to the best of its ability in its plan in an actual emergency; section 109 of the NRC Authorization en actu.1 emergency? If so: however, th!s presumption may be Act of 1980 did not specify any role for
f*ederal Regist:r / Vol. 52, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3,1987 / Roles .and Regulations 42063 FEMA in the evaluation of utihty plans inaction or inadequate action of state utillifes to be
- penalized"in situations (as opposed to state and local plane). and local authoritiest in which there was no acceptable state
/n:;c as If this is a national policy Yes, the proposed rule does leave or local plart not could be taken as a question, why doesn't the Commission open the posobility that state or local reference to economic costs or simply to !
leas e the issue to the Congress to non participation can indirectly block considerations of fairness,in that the reselser the operadon of a nuclear plant. His is 1: sue w as whether a u.tihty was to be Coqress did address, in 1980, the so because under the parucular facts of barred from operating a plant by the , issue of what should be done in the an indhidual case it may be impossible actions of third parties oser which it had . es ent there is no acceptable state or for the NRC to conclude that a W!!!y no control. local emergency plan:it directed the plan is adequate, as defined in this rule. The NRC's snouvation in promulgaung NRC to es aluate a state. local, or utility That does not mean, however, that the this rule is not economics. Its motavation plan to determine whether it presided Congress's intent, as expressed in the is to assure that the NRC is in a position "reasonable assurance that public 1980 statute and its re enactmenta,is to make the decisions that Congress health and safety is not endangered by thereby frustrated.The Congress was latended that it make, and that the operation of the facility concerned.- concerned that uulities not be Comminion has declared that it would Perhaps because it was overly eptimistic "penalised." but not to the esteat that it make, that there would be an acceptable state was willing to countenanu opuadon of Ince aflis the proposed rule or local plan in es ery case, the a nuclear power plant in a situation l intended to read states and localities out - Cor=ssion did not, except in general where the public was not adequately of the emergency planning processt terms lat to CFR 50 4r(c)). proude in its protected. Congress intended to give a Emphaucally no;. De rule leaves the regu!ations for the evaluation of a ut lity uuhty the opportunity to demonstrate es sting regulatory structure unchanged p!an. The present rule is an effort to that its p!an provided ' reasonable for cases in which state and local make up for that omission by assurance." but it also provided that the authonties elect to participate in incorporcting previsions implementing NRC could not permit a plant to operate emergency planning. no NRC,in the Congess's 1930 policy decision into unless it found that the unlity had cnet cernmon with the Congress and FEMA. de NRC's rules. As noted elsewhere, the that burden. reguds full state and local participauon 1930 statate, twice re enacted. has I"" "IO# U.ill lh' P' P08'd 'VI' la emergency planning to be necessary expired. but the NRC does not need the disc urage cooperation between for optimal emergency planning.no ' s;ecific authority of that statute to hcmsees and state and local rule change is directed to the question of adopt this rule, which is pcmu! gated gwunments in emugmcy planningt what the NRC's regulatory approach purs. ant to the NRC's general authenty, nere is no reason to believe ,that the
'* d sco should be in which states and localities under secuon 1611b) and other prousions of the Atomic Energy Act t ht en c ,,e and en ocal decide to take themselves out of the En ernments in emergency planning 'mitteDCY Pl anning process. !deall . in reguta'e the use of nuclear energy. be NRCs Wew, de aw ruk woul The House of Representatises, as has Reshiticallld ' , the only wa{ in which thenon have to be used, becaun statn been desenbed above soted 261-W on rgIe w0utd e if utIINe'sere to ecide at and locahtes would never refuse to '
August 5.1987 to reject an amendment w hich would hoe barred the because of the new rule they had less of participate in ette ency plantting, an incentive to te accommodating to the Inue sit Don e proposed rule appbcaticn of this rde to two specine altu the place of emugacy planning in
- p. ants. The Congre needs and desires of state and local cf the Commission,ss is thus well aw are authenties. That might be a possible the overau safety finding that the e
- emergency Commission must make?
plar mns rulemahng, result if it appeared that the new rule : r-ake it easy and fast for a utthty to it does not. As desenbed above, the for the Commisnon to terminate ita obtain approval for its plan in cases of Commission must make both a 'indmg r.temakes and asi the Congrus to of"adequate protective measures * *
- address the pohey inues Lns ch ed thus state and local non participation.
in reahry,it is hkely to be much mor, in an emergency" and an oserell safety seer s unwarranted at this time.ne d fricult and time.censuming for a utility finds.3 of "reasonable assurance that ' Cen mimon is onll w ell within the to obtain approval ofits plan in the face the health and safety of the public will ftamework of the guidiance which the of state and localopposition.The not be endangered-'(10 CFR 50 35(c). , Congess gase it in 1980(and in the two implementmg sectien182 of the Atomic problems highlighted by this rWemaking re.renactments of the statute) and also are likely,if anything, to trnpress Energy Act. 42 U.S C. 2232). ne rule i w ell within its rufemaking authonty. It utilities snew w,th the desirabihty of does nothing to alter either the has ) et to carry through L.at guidance to doing es erything necessary to obtain requirement that emergency planning the point of making an adjudicatory and retain full state and local must be found adequate or the place of decision on the adequacy of a utility participation in emergency planning. ernergency plarming in the os erall safety plan,if and when the Cornmission /nue sn:Is the proposed rule based T,nding. determines through adjudications in indindual cases, that there is a on an NRC consideration of economic !ssue alt. What effect if any does the costaf proposed rule hase on nuclear plants 4 conteuing prob!em w hich only The NRC rule is an effort to bring the that are already in operationt j CcrTessional achon can sche. it can so NRC's regulations more clearly into line ' The ts!e does not specifically apply to notif) the Congress. but that point has with a policy decision erade by the plants that already hase. operating l not > et been reached. Congress in 1980. The NRC's rule is thus licenses. As desenbed above,10 CFR Iu;.e 39. Doesn't the proposed rule based on economic considerations only 50 54(s)(2)(ii) of the Commission's st;ll: ease open the possibihty that state to the extent that the Congress's policy regulauons already provides a et local action or inaction can have the decision of1960 was based on economic mechanism (the "12$ day clock") for i effect of blocking operation of a plant? If considerations. In the Conference addressing situatfons in which so. how can the proposed rule be said to Peport on the NRC Authoritation Act of deficiencies are idenufied in emergency ! effec'uate the Congressionalintent that 1960 (H 95-1070. june 4,1980), th e planning at operating plants. To the hcensees not be penalized for the conferees stated that they did not wiab estent that this rule provides cdteria by
I 42004 l'ederal Register / Vol. 52, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3,1967 / Rules and Regulall:ns .u. .91- . which a utility plan would be judged by "State, local, or utility plan which ntate and le cal withdrawal from utilitka's that d full plan stateorandbylocal a hypothetical plan provides reasonable assuranc4 that the ! participation: such findings are amt a public health and safety is not tiarticipation those critena would in emergency presumably be plann!ng, o f requirement in the uvaluation of endargeted by operation of the facility l assistance to decisionmakers in emergency plans. ne final rule makes concerned." - - ** l .tetermining. under 10 CR 50.54(s)(2)(H), c! ear that every emergency plan is to be Under the Commission's 1980 rules. l i whether remedial action should be evaluated for adequacy on its own . the regulatory prosision that ! taken, and if so, what kind, where merits, without rcference to the specific impleinented the second of the two tiers . l deficiencies in emergency planning dou reductions which might be of Section 109 was general and
' amain uncorrected after 1:0 days. accomplished under the plan or to the unspeone. ne relevant regulation, to issue stS: Does the Commission's rule capabilities of any other plan.it further CFR 50 4?(c). allowed a nuclear pow er l mean that the NRC does not hne to nnd makes clear that a finding of adequacy plant to be licensed to operate,
- that a utility plan would offer protection for any plan is to be considered notwithstanding its failure to comply i equivalent to what a plan with full state generally comparable to a findirt;of with the planning standard of to CFR
, and local participation would previdef adequacy for any other plan. 50.4?lb) on a showing that "deficiencies As stated previously. under the rule ne rule change is designed to in the plans are not ognincant for the t adopted in this notice, a utility pl n. to establish procedures and enteria plant in question, that adequate interim pass muster. is required to provide governing the case.by. case adjudicatory compensating measures have been or reasonable assurance that adequate evaluation, at the operating license will be taken promptly, or that there are ! protectise measures can and will be resiew stage, of the adequacy of other corrf elbng reasons to permit plant <
- taken in emergency. The rule emergency planning in situations in operation." without defining those terms
, recognizes-as did Congress when it which state and/or local authorities further. The Commission currently enacted and re-enacted the prouslons of dechne to participate further in 1,ebeses that the planning standards of Section 1N of the NRC Authorization emergency planning It is not intended to 13 CR 50 4?(b), which are used to ! Act of 1930-that no utility plan is likely assure the licensing of any particular es aluste a state or local plan. also i to be able to preside the same degree of giant or plants. The rule is intended to provide en appropriate framework to j rublic pro'ection that would obtain remedy the omission of specific evaluate a utility plan. Therefore, the ' under ideal conditions.1 e. a state or procedures for the evaluation of a utility rew rute provides for the nrst time that
- local plan w ith full state and local plan from the NRC's estating rules, where a utility plan is submitted,in a l r articipation. but that it may adopted in 1980. In providirs for the situation of state and/or local non. ,
j r vertheless be adequate. esaluation of a utility plan, howeser, the participation in emergency planning. it ; 4 The Co . mission's rule, as modined r21e represents no departure from the wd! be evaluated for adequacy against l e 3d clanf.ed, would establish a process approach envisioned in 1980 by the the same standards used to esatuate a i j t y w hich a utility plan can be esatuated Congress and by the Commission. In state or local plan. How es er, due 1
- a cainst the same standards that are 120. the supplementary information to allowance will be made both for the e ed to es a!vate a state or local plan SRC's final rufe stated that the rule was non participation of the state and/or l
bith allcw ances made both for those consistent with the approach taken by local geserninental authonties and for
, a eas in which compliance is infeasible Congress in Section 109 of the NRC the compensatory measures proposed 1 a lecause of gosemmentalnon- Authorization Act of 1980 (which. in a by the utility in reachies a !
] r irticipatun and for the compensatory ccmpromise between llouse and Senate determination whether there is ; measures ;roposed by the utiht)). It setsions, presided for the NRC to "reasonable assutance that adequate ] i i r ust be recognized that emergency esaluate a utility's emergency plan in protective measures" can and will be ,
, p!anning rules are necessanly desible, situations where a state or localplan tak ert t l Other than "adequacy," there is no was either nonexistent or inadequate). The approach reflected in this rule j aform "passing grade" for emergency though the rule 6tselfincluded no emphnes and clarines the guidance -
p'ans, whether they are prepared by a esphcit provisions governing the NRC's presided in the Commission's decision I s' ate, a locahty, or a utihty. Rather, esolvation of a utthty plan in such in LorgIs/cedL ghting Co (Shoreham ! there is a case by-case esaluation of circumstances. it should be emphasized Nue! ear Pow er Station. Unit 1), CU ! whether t.he plan meets the standard of that the rule is not intended to diminish 13. 04 NRC ::0986). The ru!e f "adequate prctectise measures . . in public protection frcm the levels ince ; orates the "restism doctrine," set i the esent of an emergency."lakewise, presiously established by the Corgress furth in that decision, which holds that ; i the accept sbility of a plan for one plant or the Commission's rules. since the in an actual emergency, state and local
- is not measured against plans for other Commission's rules and the Congress gesernmental authcrities will act to j nuclear p! ants. The Commission, in its Fase since 1980 provided for a two tier ;rotect the public, and that it is a
1586 L/LCO decision, stressed the need approach to emergency planning The apprepnate therefore for the NRC. in i for desib.:'y in the evaluation of rale takes as its starting point the evaluating the adequacy of a utihty's 4 emergency plans. In that decision, the Congressional pclicy dectoion reCected emergency plan, to take into account the Commisse n obsersed that it "might in section 109 of the NRC Authorization probable response of state and local look faverably" on a utility plan "if Act of 19S0. That statute adopted a two. authorities, to be determined on a case- l q there was reasonable assurance that it 1:et approach 10 emergency planning. by-ca se basis. l
; was capab'e of achieving dose The preferred approach was for That decision also included language j reductions in the esent of an accident t perating licenses to be issued upon a which could be interpreted as l that are ger.erally comparable to what finding that there is a "State or local ensitioning that the NRC must estimate ; might be accomplished with government radiolegical emergency response plan the radiclegical dose reductions which a , cooperation." 24 NRC 22. 30. We do not * ' ' which complies with the utihty plan would achieve, compare j trad that decision as requiring a nnding Commission's standards fcr such plans," thern with the radiological dose } of the precise dose reductions that but failing that,it also permitted reductions whlch would be achieved if would be accomphshed either by the 1; censing on a showing that there is a there were a state or local plan with full l
a
.- _ _ _ - - . . _ -_ y __.. ._. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ -
Tederal Register / Vol. 52, Nol 212'/ Tuesday, Novemthe'r1l'i967 /.Jtules 'a5d Righlet}oris , 4iO45 state and local participation la ne rute thus establishes the major rederal achn'stan'ftcantly - emergency plannir4 and permit framework by which the adequacy of affecting the quality of the human ; licensing only if the dose . eductions are emergency planning. In cases of state envirortment and.therefore anl '. ,
"generstly comparable." Such an and/or local non participation, can be environmentalimpact alaterrent is'not interp.ets tion would be contrary to NRC evaluated on a can.by. case basis in required, h Conunission har prepared.
practice. undet which emergency plans operating license proceedings. The rule in support of this finding, an ere evaluated for adequacy without does not presuppose not does it dictate. ensitonmental assessment which is taference to nutnerical dose reductions what the outcome of that case by case available for inspection and copying. for which might be accomplished, and evaluation will be. As with other issees a fee, at the NRC Public Document without comparing them to other adjud!cated in NRC proceedings, the Room.1717 }{ Street NW., Washignton. ; emergency plans. real or hypothetical outcome of case.by-case evaluations of DC. The final rule makes clear that en ery the adequacy of emergency plartning emergency plan is to be evaluated for using a utility's plan will be subject to Regulatory Analple adrquacy on its own merits, without multiple layers of administrative review ne Commission has prepared a reference to the specific dose reductions within the Commission and to judicial regulatory analysis for tnis regalation. which rnight be accomplished under the review in the courts. This analysis further esamines the costs plan or to the capabilities of any other and benents of the proposed action and plan. !t farther makes clear that a Backfit Anal > sis the alternatives considered by the finding of adequacy for any plan is to be This amendment does not impose any Commission. The analysis is assilable considered generauy comparab!e to a new requirements oh production or for inspection and copying. for a fee, at finding of adequacy for any other plan. utilization facihties:it only provides an the NRC Public Document Room.171? l{ The Des hlord Lighting Co. decision ahunauge method to meet the . Stre e t. NW., Wa shington. DC. included the observation that in an Comminion : emergency planning For the reasons set out in Il e accident. the "best effort
- of state and uguladons. ne amendment therefore is preamble and under the authority of the not a backfit under to CFR 50,109 and a county efficials would include utihting Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended.
the unhty's plan as "the best source for backfit anal) sis is not required. the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, emergency planning information and Regulatory Mesibility Certification a: amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the options." 24 NRC 22,31. This rule leaves Comminion is adopting the following
* ^' ' 8 it to the Licensing Board to judge what arnendments to to CFR Part 50:
form the best efforts of state and local g bI ct o . U 5k officials would take.but that Judgment the Commission cert fies that this rule P ART 50-DOWESTIC LICENSING OF will n t have a significant economic PRODUCTION AND UTIUZATION would be made in accordance with certain pidelines set forth in the rule knpact up n a sdatanual numbu cd FACluTIES and es;:ained further below The smau muuu, ne pr p sed rule apph.es rulemaking record strongly supports the nly t nuclear power plant licensees 1. De authority citation for Part 50 proposition that state and local which are electric utility companies continues to read as follows: gos ernm.ents believe that a planned
'"' O' U # #'"I"'- "' Authority Sus. 103.104.161,1&L 183.166.
nun au not ,"smaH enUUu u ut t u 6s StatR Sp.148,94 954. 94 92 response is preferable to an ad hoc one. Therefore it is only reasonable to f rth in the Regulatory Flexibthty Act a s mended, sec. 234. a3 Stat 1244. u suppose that in the esent of a and do not meet the small business size mended (42 U S C 21n 21x 2:01. 2:3L radiological emergency, state and local standards set forth in Small Business 22n 236,2m9 2:82t secs 201, tot se sa Administration regulations in 13 CFR 5'at 124L 1244.1246, as smended (42 U S C officials,in the absence of a state of M41. M42,244h unleu otherwiu noted P d 121* local ra d)ological emergency plan Section 50 7 a!so inved under Puts L 95-appros ed by state and local Paperwork Reduction Act oct. see 10. 92 Sist 2951(42 USC 25th gosernments, will either lock to the This f;nal rule amends information Sections 50 57(dL So n $0 91 and 50 92 also utility and its plan for guidance or will collection requirements that are subject '".ad undu M t. m m $m M Ee' p7eUd r g !$c'e'n's'in $'a'r'dI't8 tIhu8-Y the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 Ni fufd u dersec.1 St 54 s presu.me gat state anj local (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seg ). These amer.ded (42 U S C. 2:34) Sections so too-requirements were approved by the so ter also iiind under sec. tn u Stat 955 govert: ental authonties willlook to the Office of Management and Budget. (42 U S C =36). utility fer guidance and generall approval No. 3150-0011. For the purpens of see 223 ta Stat on as its plan in an actual emergency;y follow a rended (42 U S C 22 3L secs 50 to(at ibl. howes er. this presumption may be List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 a nd (el. 50 44. 50 46 so es. 50 54 and 50 so(al rebutted by. for example, a good faith Antitrust. Classified information. Fire am iisad under sec.1 stb e4 Sist.54s. as and timely proffer or an adequate and protection. Incorporation by reference. amended (42 U S C 2:ot[blk secs 5010 lb) feasib!e state or local radiolegical Intergovernmental relations Nuclear ' d I'I "d " 54 "" '""d ""d" '!* l'"- ! response plan which would in fact be ' relied upon in an emergency. The power plants and reactors. Penalty. N,*e$sTshefsf5 b to 5071 2. Radiation protection. Reactor sitint w n and so is are innd under sec.1:1o. u I presiding Licensing Board should not enteria. Reporting and Recordkeeping nesitate to relect any claim that state stat twi as mended (42 U.S c uottolk requirements. and loc.al officials wtil refuse to act to safeguard the health and safety of the Enstronmental Assessment and Finding ) 50 47 ( Ameded) ; pubhc in the event of an actual of No Significant EnstronmentalImpact 2. In 10 CFR Part so, paragraph (c)(1) emitgency. In actual emergencies. state. The Commission has determined- of I 50 47 is resised to read as follow:: local and federal officials hase under the National Envirortmental Policy invariably done their utmost to protect Act of 1969. as amended. and the (c)(1) Failure to meet the applicable the citt:enry. as two hundred years of Commission's regulaUons in Subpart A standards set forth in paragraph (b) of Amencan history ar, ply demonstrates of 10 CFR Part St. that this rule is not a this section may result in the
42006 Fed:ral Redstee / VII. 52, No. 222 / Tuesday, November's, sar./' Rales ed Reguitions Comrnission declining toinue an substantia #y the resellcf nom operating llunse; however, the hlannina c*rta skald a#r when ete w participallon of atale and/or loce] beal soments dadda not so participais la applicant wtil hase ao opportunity to governmenta,it may be petsumed that la oEsite amergwy plasming se pnparedwa
- demonstrate to the eatmac11on of the the even1 of an actual radiologic.nl Numouwe .
Commission that deficiencies in the emergency state and local officials plans are not sigruficant for the plant la would generally follow the uti.lity plan. no themath es were considmd. question. that adequate intena llowesee, this presumption may be inclodies lues th ntsety roles compensating actions have been or will sachanged ne pros and cena d then rebutted by, for exen,ple, a good faith be taken promptly, or that there are alumauva m duued in the rGe and tiinely proffer of an adequate and preamble pubitsbed in h Federal Repstee. other compellirg reasons to permit plant feasible state and/or local radiological operations Where an applicant for an emergency plan that would in fact be C#88'F'8#" operating license asserts that its relied upon in a radiological emergency. NRC inability to demonstrate com with the requirements ofagnph par;.liance (b) ApPendh E-[% mended] he andmeJs =W probably not Oput of this section results wholly or on h7C retus arready bems used La
- 3. In 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix E, a t.nesing uws becun current hVc pcbey, substantially from the decision of state new paraEraph 6 is added to section and/or local governments not to dmloped la the adN6cary case law, is to IV.F to read as follows: nalate utary plau as seu.bie intensi participate fustber in emergency a n, p.,,3cipation of state and local compensatma actions unda 1c Cnt plannmg. an operatmg bcense may be go,ernments in an emergency exercise ta not ut?(c)(1). nus, whJe hre codd be issued il the applicant demonstrates to reqwred to the utent that the applicant bu ntensive hupt ca and review regari.ng the Commission's satisfaction that; idenuSed those goveminents as refustna to wheder the rde's critena are roet, this meuld (i) ne applicant's inability to com part cipate further i.o emergency planrung Lkely be similar to the review and huption with the requirements of parsgraph b) (ply ptsuant to to CFR So 4?(c)(1). tn achut.n. ander current practice.
of this section is wholly or substanhally 'dCh C" *^ '*ercise shall te held mth the ap uea e ,c o mmutal Ohr Cosemment Apncies the result of the non participation of ,n,( cant or state and/or local govemments, , , , , p, , No impacJ on othee agency recurus (ii) ne applicant has made a emergency plaruung process, should resdt with the ponde etcepuon that sustamed, good faith effort to secure Dated at Wash!r:ston. DC this ath day of FD4A di need to devote ruources to Octcber,19s?. dmlop criurta for tMew c.f orthry plans and retain the participation of the pertment state and/or local For the Nuctor Regstatory Comminton. and/or to redew the plans on a ca se-by<ase b ois, os ernmental a uthonties. Including the S a muel J. Chilk. urnishing of copie: of its emergeccy ###W */0' O**"I#^ pla n. (Edtorialnote ne fo!1owing replatory Impacts on th todastry are s;waleM (ijj) pe app}; cant s emergency plan ar.a!ysis and environtnental assesameet will because there is no way to predsct, la prosides reasonable assurance that not sa var in the Code of Federal advance of their acaual appbcatiork whether Repfamns! ey Wr utary %an dl u dafy the rua ndargered b ope a ion of e facilit Replatory Anal)sie-Etaluation of the ' " d
';"Cli22'*/ Jets"at?s' y 2 N ' W W "" "-"{ - >"-"- *'p """
out!med below, adequale protectne Ucanu Rn ew Stage Men State anWw Mc measures can and will be taken in the tml Cnwnnweta Deane so PaMpau h t!nder the rde tairs adc$ tad a vuhry plan, event of an emergency. A utdity plan hetW N4 to p.,, cou.1,r. is required to prends will be evaluated agamst the sarme S4'emen'c/de heblem reuenable suurance that odegusu plartrung standarda appbcable to a state in im Conven enacted provisions protuthe messarn can and wd! he Laien la or lccJi plan. as listed in paragraph duhng mth emergency p!atuung fce nuclear *A 'rt't$ency. ne rde racc$nisse-as 4d of this sectiert mth due allcwance power (b) plants m the NRC Authonutsen Act Congess when it enacted and re-enacred h made both for- ic' E ***1F*' tm Scuon 1op of that Act premtons of S.eccon top of de NRC (A) Ucse elements for which state prowded roe the NRC to review a unhty's Authortuton Act of19e-that wble no and/or local non participation rnakes ency Nu m Wa%ns 6 M a stau u'ity Nan is IM M W de to prWe compliance Infeasible and or local emergency p:an e;ther 64 not eust prec:sely the same d'F'e of puble
, or m as tradsguata. ne NRC pubbshed prciecuen that wodd obtain under ideal (D) ne ut; lit) e measures designed to replahoes latet than year that were c;&ensate for any deficiencies condanons. I e. a suts or local plan with fall des:gned to be consistent mth the resultir:g frorn siste and/or local con. state and local participatforu ruch a pian may Congrenionauy mandated approach. but participation. they d.d nc4 mclede apoctfac menhon of nnerthe ess be adquete ne rule starts fera Irt making its determination on the unhty Nes ne stunes of such a premion t'e premise that accdents can happen and adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC wtll has led to uncertamry about the NRCs that at nery Nant. adequate emergmey plarmirg messuns are needed to protect the recognize the reality that in en actual emergency state and lxalgovemment
'}y1'$ 'l ('[i '
pthe in the event an acedent occes. officials will esercise their best efforts to juded ne pre +ent rdernskira to des gned to % hetherh foundinadequate fact a particu!st would beutabty plan a r.atter for m!l
! clanfy both the NRCs obugetion to conauter proteet the health and safety of the a ut:loy plan at th eveentmg Lcense stage m adt uLcanon m mdmdaalbaosing public. ne NRC will determine the cues of state and/or local non-partic.pauon Fromde88-adequacy of that espected response, in in enrgecy Nanrung and the standards comb;r.ation with the utthty's '8' *h 1.7 poet on C:Aer ArNnverts compensatmg measures.on a case by. "afusteg 'ch such a plan would be . , case basis, subject to the followeg 03;ecry, effect other NRC reqdremens J
guida..ce. In addressing the b"# ### 4 ne objecthe of the proposed amendinents circumstance where applicant,s inability are to implement N pohey ur.ferlsus th to comply with the reqwrements of No constraints han teen 6dnttf.a4 that m Authoraatton Act and to ruolve. foe affect ir:Nementat3cn of the proposed paraguph(b)of this sectionis wholly or f tute hcansing. what offsite emergency 4:nen dme nts. l __ , _ . - - ~ ~
t Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 212 / Tuesday.. November.3.198r/ Rules and Regulationh 42087 ' Decision Actionale pnor to the licansing cf any plant. Board of Covernors cf the Federal . , l The decision ratior ele is set forth in detall Accordiesty. she rule change does not . Reserve System. Washington, DC 20551, t in the preernble to the rule change published diminah public protection and has no or delivered to Room B-2223. 20th Street in the Federal Register, tantonmentalimpact. . and Constitution Avenue NW., implemeewison Al*ncios ond rervoes consulted Washington. DC. betw een s.45 s.m. and ne rule should become effectise )o day s A summary of the sery numerous 5.15 p m. weekdays. Comments may be after pubhca uon in the Federal Register, comments appears as part of the Federal inspected in Room B-1122 between 8 45 Impfementshon willinvolse cooperation with Register notice Shortly before presentir,s an a.m. and 5.15 p m. weekdays. FEMA and the deselopment of FEMA /NRC options papet to the Commission. NRC criteria for resiew of utibly plans may be representatnes bnefed represenisiaes of the F F RMon Co N '. ; required before the rule 's applied to specific Fedcol Emngency Management Aswy on Rhoger H. Pugh. Manager (202) 726 5883. ca s e s. the contents of the options paper, Stanley B. Rediger, Senior Financial Analyst (202) 452-2629. Division of Emironmental Assessment for Amendments had*# c/ No EE8'/' coat l*Pocf Is Emersenc) Planning Regulations Dealing Banking Supervision and Regulatien . Based on the above. the Commission has ' With Evaluation of Offsite Emergency decided not to prepare an enurontnental (2021728-5883. Helen Lewis (202) 452-Plcnning foe Nuclear Power Plants at the irnpact statement for the rule changes. 3490. Economist. Financial Reports Operating license Review Stage Wher, State Section. Division of Research and and/or local Cosemments Decibe to [FR Doc. 67-2509 Fi!ed 11-24h 8 45 aml "C"'"* Statistics; or John Harry Jorgenson. Participate la Offsite Emergency Planning Senior Attorne (202) 452-37*8. Legal Identficatan of the Action pgogpAtpgsgpygsysygu Mon: Boar omosunop of k The Com .ission is amendin its na sm Wrn. W aQg4n. regulations to proude entene for the 12 CFR Part 208 DC 20551. For the hearing impeired eve!uation at the operating hcense stage of ONLY Telecommunications Device for offsite emegency plannies where. because of IRegutauon H; Doct et No. R-06 t SI tha non-parncipatron of state and/orlocal the Deaf. Earnestine Hill or Dorothea Agricultural Loan los s Amortization Thompson. (202) 452-3544. gos ernmental authonbes. a utibty has proposed its own emergency plan-ACt hCY: Doard of Cosernors of the g[ the Competitive Equality Banking Act The NeedSt the Act<on Federal Reserve System. of 1gg;("CEBA") permits agricultural As descnbed in the Federal Register notice action: Final rule with request for accompanpng the final rule, the banks to amortite:(1) Losses on comments. quahfied agriculturalloans shown on its commissien's emergency plannin8 l regulations promulgated in 19E did not .
$UW M ARY: This regulation implements annual financial statement for any year emphcitly d.scuss the esalvation of a utihty Tit!e Vll! of the Competitise Equahty between December 31.1983 and January emergency 1' 1991 and (2) losses suffered as the prouded that ;lan.
in thealthough absence Cong*ess of a state orespressly Banking Act of 1987 ("CEBA") which "
- local emergency plan, or in cases w bre a permits state member aEncultural banks state or local ptan
- as inadegaate, the NRC to amortire losses on qualified (related to a qualified agriculturalloan) should consider a whhty plan nat omission agneultural loans. The regulauon that it owned on january 1.1983. or has led to uacerisinty as to whether the NRC descnbes the procedures and standards acquires prior to lanuary 1.1992. Title is empowe ed to consider a utihty plan in applicable to state mernber banks Vill of CEBA also requires that the cases of sta'e and/or local non-participation. desiring to amortire lossei under that federal bankinI aEencies issue as well as about what the standards for the esaluation of such a plan w:n.!d be. statute. It also desenbes the mannet in '*EN " 8 "8 " " ' " ' " " Ih""
90 days after the effective date of the which such amortizations are to be Alternotiies Considered done. Title VI!! of CEBA require: ^# The Commission published a proposed rule regulations implementing Title \ 10 to be 93 'y",',j' o ' n n o [ change on March s.1947. at $2 FR Meo. In issued not less than 90 days after comply with this requirement. The other deciding on a final rule. the Commission enactment, that is, by November A 1987. federal bankinI agencies (the Office of considered four options in addition to the one Therefore, the Board is publishing t w the Comptroller of the Currency and the reflected in the fkal rule Dese were: na DeposH Insurance CormaHon rute as a final rule effectis e Nos embu 9. issuance of the rule as engina!!) preposed ggg7. for the Call Report for December l' FDIC},}) are proposing substantia!!y and desenbed. issuance of a rule making 31.1987 but is allowin8 interested iden. heal ng lahom contang onh clear that ta cases of staie and/or local non. participanca. hcenses could W issued on the parties to comment through December 3. techn: cal s attations necessary to bam of the uuhtra best efforts. issuance of a 1957. Should changes be indicated by accom .odate their own reEulatory and rule barnns the issuance of heenns in cases the comments, the Board will endeavor o1anizational s) stems.The standards of state and/or localnon participation. and to adopt them sho.dy after the close of to be arphed are unrt:anged. t rmination of the rulemakmg without the the comment period but before the Call issuance of any rule change. Statutory Requirements for lean Loss Report for December 31,1987. is filed. Environmer tallenpoets of tAe Action Amortization Banks wishing to amortire losses may
' file an application any time after Title V!!! of CEEA includes the req remen bat for a ra?ng l$c'ense to pubbcation of the rule. following elements:(1) To be eligible to be issued. emergency planning for the plant eates: The rule will be effectis e amortire losses. t. bank must meet the in question must be adequate. De rule is Nosember 9.1987, and the first Call foDowisg uquinments:
designed to effeetme the second track of the Report affected will be the Call Report (alits deposif s must be insured by the two-track a;proach adopted by the Congress FDIC; ad for December 31.1987. Comments must " t s ucce a eavh tat n act be receis ed on or before December 3. (b)lt must be located in an area the desenbed m detailin the rederal Register 198t ec nomy of which is dependent upon nottee. De nule does not affect the place of accatssts: All comments should tefer agriculture; emergency planning m the oserall safety to Docket No. R4615 and should be
- finding
- heh the Commission must make (c)It musi have assets of $100 million mailed to William W. Wiles. Secretary, or less:
i 4
i l i i l i i Document 9: 10 CFR $ 50.47 (after 1987 Amendment) 1 b p i J > I I i
! 6 I
. i f I i i i
- ~ - - - -n - ,. , -- ,-- - - - - ,,- - , -. - -, ,, .,,, ,
,, - r--,
i ! t i t f m ti tw Part 50 l.icensing of Production and Utillsation Facilities 4001 (f74344} f Sec. 50.47. Emergency plans.-(a)(1) Except as provided in parsgraph !
'(d) of this section. no operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be '
issued unless a 6nding is made by NRC that there is reasonable sieurance that adequate pruteetwe measures can and will be taken in the event ut a radiological emergency. (2) The NRC will base it< 6nding on a review of the Federal Emergency
- Stansgement Agency FESIA) dndings and determinations as to whether State and ! veal emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reason. .
sble a surance that they can be implemented and on the NRC s$sessment ' as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are a lequate and - whether there ii reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. A FESIA tinding will primarily be based on a review of the plans. Any other information alresdv svai!ahle to FESIA mar 'e considered in assessing - whether there is reasonsble assurance that the' plans can be implemented in i any NRC licensing prueeding a FESIA 6nding will constitute a rebuttable presumption on questmns of adequacy and implementation capability. ;
., (b) The onsite and, exapt as,provided in paragraph (d) of this section. !
ortsite emergency reslunse plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards. (1) Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility licensee and by State and toest organiastions within the Emergency Plan-ning Zones have been assigned. the emergenev responsibilities of the various i supporting organizations have been speci6ca'lly established, and each prin- ! cipal response creanirstion has stad to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis, i j (2) On shiit iscilit unambiguously de6ned,y licensee responsibilities for emergency response are adequate star 6ng to provide initial facility accident [ response in key functional stess is maintained at all times timely sugmentation of response capabilities is available and the interisees among various onsite ! response activities and odsite sapport and response activities are speci6ed. d) Arrangements for requesting and edectively using assistance re. { sources have been made, strangements to secommodate itste t.nd locr.1 sts:( st the licensee's near site Emergency Operations Facility have been made, and other organizations espable of sugmenting the plannel response have been ident:6ed. i H) A standard emergency classi6estion and action level acheme. the bases of which include iscihtv svstem and e9uent parameters,is in use by the l i nuclest iscility licensee, and' Siate and toest response plans call for reliance ! on information provided by facility licensees fer determinations of min. mum ' initial orisite response measures. ($) Procedures have teen establi>he 1 far notidestion, by the licensee. of State and best response organizations and for notidestion of emer:;ency i personnel by all organiestwns: the content of initial and followup mes ages to response organirst:cns and the public has been established; an.1 mcans to ; provide early noti 6 cati:n and clear instruction to the poputsce withm the plume esposure psthuay Emergency Planning Zone '.sve been establi,hed. i i6) Provisions esist for prnmpt evmmunications among principst response organizations to emergency personnel and to the rublic. i (7) Information is made available to the public on a periodic basis on how they will be not:6ed and what their initist actions should be in an emer- !' (The nest regeis scat t] Nuclear Regulation Reports { 10 CFR $ 50.47 17434e !
54: ti.is4' Part 56 Liceaslag of Prodvetion and tJtiEsotion Facilities 4 4 4648 3 listening to a local broadcast station and remaining, indoors I l. gency the principa ,(e., g.! points of contract with the news media for dissemmat!c - i infortnation during an emergency (including the physical location w locations) are established in advance, and procedures for coordinated dissemination of ) information to the public are established. ; (S) Adequate emergency facilities and e gency response are provided and maintained. quipment ts support the emer. l 1 (9) Adequate methods, systems, and equipment for assessing and men. I 1 itoring actual,or potential otTsite consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use. {
- i. ,
(10) A exposure range of protective actions have been developed for the plume pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. Guidelines
! for the choice of protecthe actions during an emer:ency, consistent with ;
j Federal guidance are developed and in place. and protective actions for the ' ingestion exposur,e pathway cPZ appropriate to the locale have been desetoped. ; (ll) Steans for controlling radiological exposures, in an emergency, are established for emergency workers. The means for controlling radio-logical exposures shall includ' e exposure guidelines consistent with EPA 3 Emergency Worker and I.ifesaving Activity Protective Action Guides. (12) Arrangements are made for rnedical services for contaminated in. jured individuals. (13) General plans for recovery and reentry are developed. l of em(14) Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions ergency response capabilities, pericdie drills are twill be) conducted to develop and 7naintain key ski!!s. and deficiencies identified as a result of i exercises or drills are (will be) corrected. (15) Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be called on to assist in an emergency. (16) Responsibilities for plan development and review and for distri-J bution of emergency plans are established, and planners are properly trained. (c)(1) Failure to meet the applicable standards set forth in paragraph
- i (b) of this section may result in the Corrrnission iteclining to issue an operating l licenset howeser. the applicant will have an opportumtv to demonstrate to .
i
- the Jatisfaction of the Commissior. %st desciencies in the plans are not sig-ni6 cant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensating actions i
have been or will te taken promptly or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant operations. Where an applicant me an operating license i asserts that its inability to demonstrate empliance w:th the requirements ci-paragtaph (b) of this section results w holly or sub tantially from the decision 3 7 of state and or local governments not to particpate fur'ther in emergene;'
- planning, an operating license may be isnie 1 it the applicant demonstrates to the Commission's satisfaction that - .
i ti) The applicant's inability to comple with the requirements of para. graph (b) of this section is wholly or substantially the result of the non-participation of state and/or local gmernments. ; I j tii) The applicant has ma.!e a su taine i. good faith e fort to secure and retain the participation of the pertinent . tate and.or local governmental t authorities, including the furnishing of spes of its emergency plan. ! (iii) The applicant's emergenev plan provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not enbeered by operation of the facility con-j Nuclear Regulation Reports 10 CTR $ 50.47 $7434e t 4 d I 1 1
~ > s t
j > 1 r f i 3 s e
8882 Regs!ations--Nudear Regulatory Comtnisdon W 31 18
- cerned. To make that 6nding, the applicant must demonstrate that. as out.
lined below adeq of an emerg,ency.uate protective measures can tnd wall be taken in the esent i A utility plan will be esaluated against the same planning standards applicable to a state or local plan, as listed in paragraph ibs of this section, with due allowance made both for-t A) Those elements for which state and/or local non participation makes compliance infeasible and (B) The utility's measures designed to compensate for any de6ciencies resulting from state and/or local non participation. In making a determination on the adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC vill resegrdre the reality that in an actual ernergency, state and !ccal gosernment crncials will exercise their best edorts to protect the health and safet f the pubhc. The NRC will detem,ine the adequacy of that ex the utility's compensating measures. on a;ated response.y in ecenbination with case by. case basis. subject to the o following guidance. In addressing the circumstance where applicant's in-aoility to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of thu section is wholly or substantially the result of non participation of state and/or local governments, it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local of6cials noubl generally follow the utility plan. However, this presumption may be rebutted by, for example, a good faith and timely prorter of an adequate and feasible state and or local radiological emergency plan that would in fact be relied upon in a radiological emergency. (2) Generally, the plume exposure pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius and the in-gestien pathway EPZ shall consist of an area about 50 miles ($0 km) in radius. The exact size and con 6guration of the EPZs surrounding a particular nuclear power reactor shall be determined in re!ation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are adected by such corditions as femography, tcpegraphy. land characteristics. access routes, and j risdictional boundaries. The size of the EPZ: also may be determined on a case by. case basis for gas cocled nuclear reactors and for reactors with an author: zed pw.ver level tess than 250 31W thermal. The plans for the ingestion pathway shall focus on such actions as are appropriate to protect the food ingest;on pathway. (d) Notwithstanding the requirements ci paragraphs ia' and ib) of this sectten. no NRC or FE3!A rev:ew, 6nd.ngs. or .!< term:nat: ens ccncerning the state of crisite emergency preparedness or the a.!equacy s.: an d capabihty to implement State and lccal cdsite emergency p:ans are re;u red trict to tssuance of an cperating license authct:zrg only fuel :ca ?me ac.d or low power operations (up to 59 of the rate l pvwer. Inwist u emergency planning and preparedness requirements c.re scncerne i. a heenn authort:ing tuel leading and/or low power operaticn rnay be inued after a 6nding is made by the NRC that the state of onnte emergency prepareiness provides reasonable assurance that adequate prcteet:ve menures can and will be taken in the event of a radioicgical emergency The NRC mil tase this 6nding on its assessment ci the applicant's emergency r!ans agamst the pertinent this Part. standards in paragraph <bi ei this section and A;pendix E cf [Sec. 50 47 as added August 19. 1930. edective Nos ever 3.19f0 t at F. R. 55402); amended effective Tulv 13.1952 (47 F. R. 302321: of6cially corrected Scytember 15.1992 i d7 F'. R: 40336,. amen le i f ulv 6 M edeettv'e August 6. IM4 49 F. R. 27733). i a m M e t cieetn e afae l 1:43 i!0 F. R. 19323); amended Nos ember 3.1957. edectne DecemFer 3.1957 i!2 F R. 42073).] i7434e 10 CTR $ 50.47 ; us?, Commerce Cleatu: House. !ae. l
s Document 10: 10 CFR Part 50, ApperAix E (after 1987 Amendment) I P 4 1 1 i t j I r 1
m ' 88* Part 4-Lkenning of Production and UtWantian FacGties 0749 APPENDIX E- EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS , FOR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES [V 7470) Table of Contee es I, Introduction II The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report I!!, The Final Safety Analysis Report IV. Content of Emergency Plans V. Implementing Procedures I, Introduction Each applicant for a construction permit is required by i 50.34(a) to include in the preliminary safety analysis report a discussion of preliminary ; plans for coping with emergencies. Each applicant for an operating license is requ for cop, ingired with by j 5034(b),to include in the final safety analysis report plans emergencies. This appendix establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness. These plans shall be described generally in the preliminary safety analysis report and submitted as a part of the final safety analysis report. ' The potential radiological hazards to the public associated with the operation of research and test reactors and fuel facilities licensed under 10 , CFR Parts 50 and 70 involve considerations different than those associated with nuclear power reactors. Consequently, the size of Emergency Planning Zones 5 I which co(EPZs)mpliancefor facilities with other than power the requirements of this reactors Section and and Sections the degree II. III, to IV, and V as necessary will be determined on a case.by-case basis.' Notwithstanding the above paragraphs, in the case of an operating license authoriaint only fuel loading and/or low power operations up to Sr. of rated ' power, no NRC or FEMA review, findings, or determinations concerning the I state of orisite emergency preparedness or the adequacy of and the capability to implement State and local otisite emergency plans, as defined in this Appendix, are required prior to the issuance of such a license. II. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report
'Ile Preliminary Safety Analysis Report shall contain sufficient informa.
tion to ensure the compatibility of proposed emergency plans for both onsite areas and the EPZs, with facility design features, site layout, and site location with respect to such considerations as access routes, surrounding population
- EPZa ele power rendors are dicsuaaed in basis for gas <oeled nuclear resetors and toe s
NL' REG 4388: EPA 530/s.401s, "Plannt P g resetors with u authortaes poner lewn lees Easts for the Development of state sad toest than J5o MW thermal Cenera21y. the plurne , Covernment Radioic9r' cal Emergency Res ponse esposure pathway epa rar nuclear power plaats PlaAs in Su pport of IJ ght water Nue: ear with an authertaes pceer levet stetter thaa Poeer Planta." December IFN The este of :5o Mw tPermaJ ana:4 e%stst of an a.ree about use EPts for a nuclear power plant shall to 13 miles (16 k7nt la radius and the tegentlown 2 determined in relation to local errergency re- pathsay EP2 shall coe.stst of aA area about M , spcese reeds and capaht!!ttes as they are at- miles (km in rastua. rected by such eenottions as demogra s h y, e Regstatory Culde s s will te Esed sa 5414-(tpegraphy. land characteristics. access routes, anee for the actettability et resensch arte test ard jurindletional boundarles The stae of the reactor emergency respct.se plaAa. EP2a ajse may be determined en a ca.ne-by<sse j Nuclear Regulation Repets 10 Cf'M 50, App. E 17470 I J 4 c
f Resslatiame- NacJest Regulawy CMM !
$74 M di f r the EPZs ia l distributions, land use. and local h jurisdictional boun ar es oeans by;
' the case of nuclear power reactors as well as t e m i ards of l }0.47(b) will be met. As a minimum, the following items shall be i s anddescribed: A. Onsite and odsite orhanisations for coping with emergenc ee l the means for notification,in t i i to the emergency organisations.s. Contacts and arrangements , and Federal governmental agencies l with respons t 4 gencies, including identification f of the cident; procedures f an principa agen .f i each EPZ to protect health and h blic is tosafety be noti 6ed in the event o a evacuation, who authorises the evacuation, howd tthe e expected
, pu - and instructed, how the evacuation is to be carried out); an I response of orfsite agencies in the event of an emergency. first aid :
I l f site individuals and decontamination and for emergency transportat i i i to ogsite treatment facilities.E. Provisions to be rnade for emer j of individuals injured as a result of licensed activities. F. Provisions for a training program for employees i h of the licensee, i including those and who for other persons who are not employees of the responsibility are assigned specitic authority and l < event o' an emergency,istance may be needed in the event of a radiological licensee but whose ass emergency. l G. A preliminary analysis that projects thed the time publicand means to be employed in the notification of State and local governments h ll per- an f j m the event of an emergency. A nuclear power plant applicant s a [
- 8. form a preliminary analysis of thei time required to evac or taking 3
manent populations, noting major impediments to the evacuat on of protective actions. ' H. A preliminary analysis reflecting the need to include facilitics, sys.d potenti i tuns. and methods for identifying the degree of seriousness and t ide , 3 sente of radiological corisequences of emergency situations l ti ewithin an ou s ; 1 the site boundary, including capsbilities for dose projection using rea m meteorological information and for dispatch of radiological monitoring it teams l within the EPZs: and a preliminary analysis rerlecting the role of the ons e ,
, technaal support center and of the near site emergency o !
mformat on to the public. I i III. The Final Safety Analysis Report l The Final Safety Analysis Report shall contain the plans for coping with ; emergencies. The plans shall be an expression of the overall concept of opera-t*n; they shall describe the essential elements of advance planning that have
! t*'n ensidered and the provisions that have been made to cope with emer. ,
- eency utuations. The plans shall incorporate information about the emer-7 pense roles of supporting organisations and odsite agencies. That j ty(r '"tion a shall be sufficient to provide assurance of coordination among
, ig'"IN"mg groups and with the licensee. i 17470 10 CFR 50. App. E ID 1964. Commerce Clearias House.188-3 I t i 1 1 4 i f 1 I 1 1 ,
+
u
, e
- e .f i> di ne r 23* Part 50 ! wasing of Productk and Utatsstica Faculties 8748=3 The plans submitted must include a descr /
in Section IV for the Emergency Planningones [i tion of the 8 elements set out ' ! EPZs) to an extent ' 1 sufficient tr demonstrate that the plans pro.ide reas(onable assurance,thatx
's j adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emer. - , .
j gency, J' l . IV. Content of Emergency Plans The applicant's, emergency plans shall contain, but not necessarily be e ! limited to, information needed to demonstrate compliance with the elements , ! set forth below i.e., organiza' ion for coping with radiation emergencies, l 4 assessment action, activation of emergency organization, noti 6 cation prc<e-l fures, emergency facilities and (quipment, training, traintaining emergency 4 preparedness, and recovery. In addition, the emergency tesponse plans sub. mitted by an applicant fx a nuclear power reactor operating license shall ' contain information needed to denonstrate compliance with the standards l described in Section 50A7(b), and they will be evaluated against those stand-4 ards. Th* nuclear power reactor operating license applicant shall also pro-4 vide an knalysis of the time required to evacuate and for taking other i i protective. actions for various sectors and distances within the plume exposure ' pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations. l A. Orpd:ations i The organization for coping with radiological emergencies shall be de- , I scribed, including de6nition of authorities, responsibilities, and duties of * , individuais assigned to the licensee's emergency organization and the means for noti 6 cation of such individuals in the event of an emergency. Speci6cally, the following shall be included: ; i 1. A description of the normal plant operating organization. ! i
- 2. A description of the onsite emergency response organization with a !
i detailed discussion of: '
- a. Authorities, responsibilities, and duties of the individual (s) who will take charge during an emergency; 2 *
- b. Plant staff emergency assignments; i c. Authorities, responsibilities, and duties on an onsite emergency co- >
i ordinator who shall be in charge of the exchange of information with orYsite authorities responsible for coordinating and implementing orYsite emergency ; l incasures. t l 3 A description, by position and function to be performed, of the li-t censee's headquarters personnel who will be sent to the plant site to augment 1 1 the onsite. - nergency organization. 4 d Identi6 cation, by position and function to be periormed, of persons ' within Ne licensee organization who will be responsible for making orTsite ! dose projections, aad a description of how these projections will be made i and the results transmitted to State and !ccal authorities, NRC, and other , appropriate governmental entities.
}
- 5. Identi6eation, by position and function to te performed, cf other em-
~
j ployees of the licensee with special qualifaations for coping with emergency conations that may arise. Other persons with special quali6 cations, such as ' contuttants, who are not employees of the licensee and who may be called
**' brucory case a a =m w us,e as eve.
- a f' ' t**
i reea~e m er.e $mptstuity x p r,,wofwre,sen.rca y , ,. ama test Hudear RegWtion Re;crts le CTM 30e App. E 1 7474 , { r i s l h l
,y- . . . _ . _ , ,
.,)
l 4 i a f . j 4749-4 Reguistion Nuct.ar meesgatory comuntenien ne ras <es ' l quali6 cations of these persons shall be described.upon for assista ! j the licensee's ernergency organiration.6. A description of the local o t local, and Federal agenc,ies with responsibilities for cop i
- 8. Identi6 cation of the State and ning for, ordering, and cont i
evacuations when necessary. rolling actions, propriate protective ap/orincluding local omelats respo 1 B. Assessment Actions . . l' tinually assessing the impact of the release of radioactive m ' t i described, including emergency action levels that are to be used as criteria 1 for determining the need for notification and participation of local and State action levels that are to be used for determining when and ! protective measures should be considered within and outside the site bound. i ary to protect health and safety. The emergency action levels shall be based on in plant conditions and instrumentation in addition to onsite and oRsite i bmonitoring. the a These emergency action levels shall be discussed and agreed on i
! b NRC.pplicant and State and local governmental authorities and approved They shall also be reviewed with the State and local governmental i authorities on an annual basis.
~
.i i C. Attitration of E5rynty Organi:aticn { i The entire or activating spectrum of emergency conditions that involve of rogressive the alerting \ i larger segments of the total emergency organi. r ) aation shall be escribed. t 3 activate emergency personnel under each class of emergene'he communicatio 3 Emerger.cy action levels (based not only on onsite and on ite radiation moni.shall be de! I
- toring information but also on readings Irom a number of sensors that indicate of the Emergency Core Cooting System) for noti 6 cation of
, shall be described. The existence, but not the details, of a message authenti. cation scheme sball be noted for such agencies. i
- shall include
- (!) notification of unusual events,The emergency 2 alert, (3) site classes area dedned ,
; emergency. and (4) general emer in NURfG 0654; FE.ifA. REP.I. gency. These class (es)are funher discus i t
D. Notif.ation Procedures ! Federal omeials and agencies and agreements reached 1. Administ; . I agencies for the prompt no ith these oscials and > other protective measures,tification of the public and for public evacuation or should they become necessary shall be described. ! This description shalt include identi6 cationo c.f the appr, priate o5eials by ! title and agency, of the State and local gosernment agencies within the EPZs . i
- 2. Provisions shall be described for yearly dissemination to the public i
within the plume exposure pathway EPZ of basic emergency planning infor. . { mation, such as the methods and times required for public notineation and ' { the protective actions planned if an accident occurs, general information as to j the nature and edects of radiation, and a lis?.ing of local broadcast stations that will be used for dissemination of information during an emergency Signs 1 7479 or other measures shall also te used to disseminate to any transient po } i le CPR 50. App. E l C 19s s, commeece Clearing House. !ac, l
~ y,.,. .- . . l
.o e
m r n44 Part b-1,1censmg of Production and Uthat% Fumties 87494 lationbe would within hMpfulthed anr,bme exp>sure acsident occurs. pathway EPZ appropriate information that
- 3. A licensee shall haw the capability to notify retconsible State and n '
.toThe beenste shall temonstrate that the State / local offic mAe a public' noti 6catien decision prure.ptiv on beir licensee of an emergency conditione Ey Februan 1,1982,y i' formed by the have been established for alerting and movidingreactor licensee '
public within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. prompt instructions to the The four mon'h period in 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2) for the correction of emergency plan def.ciencies sh!! not apply qu; redtobythe initial installation Fchruary 1,1982. ihaof this public ncti6 cation system that n re-fouf month r>criod will apply to correction of de6ciercica prompe . pbli.: identified during the initial installation and testing of the t hereafter. notification systems as well as those de6ciencies discovered have the capability to essentiallyThe design objective cf the prompt public actification s public within the plume exposure giathway El'c within about 15 minutes. The use of ti.is notiQation capability will range fruit iirsnediate notification of the publie Svithin 15 minutes of the time that State ar.d local officials are events wl.ue there is substantial time available %r the S ernmental notificatirn *Mficit.N to make a judgment whether or net to activate the public system. system, :he S+ ate Where there and local is a decision otlicials to activate will determine whetherthe notification to activ: te the entire notification system simultaneously or in a graduated or stagut manner. The esponsibility for activating such a public notifiration system shall remain v ith the appropriate government authorities. E, Fmerpncy Facilitin and Equipment and equipment,iicluding: Adequate pts; visions shall be made and described fo
- 1. Equipment att$e site for personnel monitoring;
- 2. Equipment for determining the magnitude of and for continuously assessing the impact of the release of radioactive materia!s to the environment:
- 3. Facilities and supplies at the site for dece,,tamination of onsite individuan 6rst aid trer.cment;4. FaciliO s and medical supplies at the site fer apropriate
' qual"ied to handle radiation .mergencies onsite :5. Arrangements from'the s.te to specifically identified treatment facilities o boundary; activities on the site at treatment fanlities outside the site
- 8. A licensee onsite techni< x1 support center a,d a licensee 1 ear-si'e emergency operations facility frem which ctTectise direc .
eTective control can be exercised 6uring an emergency; tic.n can be given and system shall have a backup power souice.V At least one onsite and Nucleu Regulation Reports 10 CFM 50, App. E 17470 e. I _^
4750 Regulations-Nudear Regulatory Commissice
- F-8844 All communication plans shall have arrangements for emergencies, in-cluding titles and alternates for those in charge at both ends of communica-tion links and the primary and backup means of communication. Where consistent with the function of the governmental agency, these arrangements will include:
- a. Provision for communications with contiguous State / local govern-ments within the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Such communications shall
, be tested monthly.
- b. Provision for communications with Federal emergency response organizations. Such communications systems shall be tested annually.
- c. Provision for communications among the nuclear power reactor control room. the onsite technical suport center, and the near. site emergency operations facility; and among the nuclear facility, the principal State and local emergency operations centers, and the 6 eld assessment teams. Such communications systems shall be tested annually.
- d. Provisions for communications by the licensee with NRC Head-quarters and the appropriate NRC Regional OtTice Operations Center from the nuclear power reactor control room, the onsite technical support center, and the near-site emergency operations facility. Such communications shall be tested monthly.
F. Training The program to provide for (1) the training of employees and exercising, by periodic drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure that employees of the licensee are familiar with their specific emergency response duties and (2) the participation in the training and drills by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation emergency shall be described. This shall include a description of specialized initial training and periodic retrain-ing programs to be provided to each of the following categories of emergency personnel:
- a. Directors and/or coordinators of the plant emergency organization;
- b. Personnel responsible for accident assessment. including control roorn shift personnel;
- c. Radiological monitoring teams;
- d. Fire control terms (fire brigades);
- e. Repair and damage control teams;
- f. First aid and rescue teams;
- g. Medical support personnel;
- h. Licensee's headquarters support personnel;
- i. Security personnel.
In addition, a radiological orientation training program shall be made available to local services personnel, e. g., local emergency services / Civil Defense, local law enforcement personnel, local news media persons. l The plan shall describe provisions for the conduct of emergency pre-
- paredness exercises as follows
- Exercises shall test the adequacy of timing
! and content of implerrenting procedures and methods, test emergency equip- ! ment and communication networks, test the public notification system, and i l ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.8 ' l e use or site sputee simuiator, or computers l ts semtabe cor any exercise. : 1 7470 10 CFR 50, App. E @ 1954, Commerce Clearing House,Inc. i l I i i
'l l
l 1 64 8 11 16 67 Part 50 -Licensing of Production and Utilization Faci!! ties 8751
- 1. A full participation
- exercise which tests as much of the licensee, state and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without manda-tory public participation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued af ter July 13, 1982. This exercise shall be conducted within two years before the issuance of the first operating license for full power (one authorizing operation above 5(*c of rated power) of the first reactor and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ.
,1f the full participation exercise is conducted more than one year prior to issuance of an operating license for full power, an exercise which tests the license *s onsite emergency plans shall be conducted within one year before issuance of an operating hcense for full State or local government participation. power. This exercise need not have
- 2. Each licensee at each site shall annually exercise its emergency plan.
- 3. Each licensee at each site shall exercise with offsite authorities such that the State and local government emergency plans for each operating re-actor site are exercised biennially, with full or partial participation 8 by States and local governments, within the plume exposure pathway EPZ State and local governments that have fully participated in a joint exercise since October 1,1982, are eligible to fully participate in emergency preparedness ,
exercises on a biennial frequenc3. The level of participation shall be as follows: (a) A State shall at least partially participate in each offsite exercise at each site. 2 years.(b) A State shall fully participate in at least one offsite exercise every pathw(c) At least once every 7 years, all States within the plume exposure for that aysite. EPZ for a given site must fully participate in an offsite exercise This exercise must also involve full participation by local governments within the plume exposure pathway EP2. for a(d) Partial participation by a local government during an offsite exercise in a biennial exercise at another site. site is acceptable only when the local gov (e) Each State within any ingestion exposure pathway EPZ shall exer-at least once every a years.cise its plans and preparedness related to ingestion , (f) Licensees shall enable any State or local g:vernment located within the plume exposure pathway EPZ to participate in annual exercises when requested by such State or local government. satisfactorily tested during the biennial exercise. such that NRC,
'"Tull partleipation" w hen used in ernjune.
tien with emergency preparedness exeretses for to verify the c3pability to respond to the acci. a particular site rneans appropriate offstte local den.t scenario. and State authorities and e Partial partle!)atten" when used in een-phislently and aethely take 1.censee part la personnet testing Panction with er .argency preparedness eter-their Integratd capability to adequately attest cisn ter a particular site means apprcpriate ans resacnd to an acetdent at a cor*merem the "sN authortt:es shall aethely take part in nulear poser plant.
- Full part!$ acon" in. exerette su.*. dent to test dire:tt:n and ,
clades testlnr the maior 9 servable porttons of ecntrol f anetior.s
- 1. e.. ft) prettethe actieri i
( the onsne and o'fslie emergency plans and dectston raakteg related ' to emergency action mcblitsiten of state local ar.d licensee per. les els, and Ibn cemmunicatica ca pa bflatles sonnel ar d other resources in suf".clent riumters a:nong anected State and local authorities and the !!censee. Nuclear Regulation Reports 10 CFR 50, App. E $7470 1
87512 Regulations-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 64 : : .is.or sultation with FEMA, cannot find reasonable assurance that adequate pro-tective measures can be taken in the event to a radiological emergency. The extent of State and local participation in remedial exercises must be sufficient to show that appropriate corrective measures have been taken regarding the elements of the plan not properly tested in the previous exercises.
- 5. All training, including exercises, shall provide for formal critiques in order to identify weak or deficient areas that need correction. Any weak.
nesses or deficiencies that are identified shall be corrected.
- 6. The participation of state and local governments in an emergency exercise is not required to the extent that the applicant has identified those governments as refusing to participate further in emergency planning activ-ities, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). In such cases, an exercise shall be held with the applicant or licensee and such governmental entities as elect to participate in the emergency planning process.
G. Maintaining Emergency Pretaredness Provisions to be employed to ensure that the emergency plan, its im-plementing procedures, and emergency equipment and supphes are maintained up to date shall be described. H. Recovery Criteria to be used to determine when, following an accident, reentry of the facility would be appropriate or when operation could be resumed shall be described. V. Implementing Procedures No less than 180 days prior to the scheduled issuance of an operating license for a nuclear power reactor or a license to possess nuclear material the applicant's detailed implementing procedures for its emergency plan shall be submitted to the Commission as specified in i 50.4. Licensees who are authorized to operate a naclear power racility shall submit any changes to the emergency plan or procedures to the Commission, as specined in i 50.4, within 30 days of such changes. , Ap F. R[.19:pendix E as added December 11, 1970, effective January 22,1971 (35 67): amended effective Januar August 19,19S0, erective November 3,y 198011.1973 (38 (45 F. R. F. R.1271); 55402); of!iciallyamended cor-rected May 29.1981 (46 F. R. 2S838); amended edective December 30,1931 (46 F. R. 63031); amended edective Julv 13.1982 (47 F. R. 30232); amended effective December 28,1982 (47 F. R. 5f670): amended Julv 6.1934, efective August uary 6,19&4 5,1987 (51(49 F.F. R.R.40310): 27733); amended November 6.1936. e6ective Jan-amended erective May 6, loS7 (52 F. R. 16829) : amended November 3,1987, esective December 3,1987 (52 F. R. 42078).] l l 1 l 1 7470 10 CFM 50, App. E @ 1987, Commerce Clearing House. Inc. l
f Document 11: Transcript of Telephone Prehearing Conference in Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (February 25,1988) i
19279 UNITEDSTATESOFAbERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of: :
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (Remand / Emergency Unit 1) : Planning) 7 :
................' . .x 8
9 Thursday, February 25, 1988 10 Room 427
" 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20815 12 The telephone prehearing conference in the g
above-entitled matter convened at 10:34 a.m. 15 JUDGE JAt'IS P . GLEASON, Chairman 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board g7 513 Gilmoure Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 JUDGE JERRY R. KLINE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ! as nq n, D.C. 20555 l 20 ! l JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON I 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 l l 23 , 24 25
dic-2 ? 1928@ l APPEARANCES: 2 On behalf of the NRC Staff: 3 GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQ. 4 EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ. Office of General Counsel Washington,' O.C. 20555 5 (301)492-1586 6 On_ behalf of Intervenor Suffolk County: 7 LAWRENCE C. LANPHER, ESQ. 8 HERBERT BROWN KARLA J. LETSCHE 9 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N . ti. Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 10 (202)778-9011 11 On behalf of Intervenor State of New York: l2 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ. 13 Special Counsel to the Governo~r Executive Chamber - Room 229 14 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 15 (518)474-1273 On behalf of LILCO: 17 DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQ. JAftES N. CHRIST!iAN, ESQ. 18 LEE ZEUGIN Hunton & Williams 19! 707 East liain Street ) P.O. Box 1535 i 20 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804)788-8357 21 { On behalf of FEMA: 22 ! WILLIAM R. C U'iM ING , ESQ. 23 Of fice of General Counsel 500 C Street, S.W. - Room 840 24 Mashington, D.C. 20472 (202)646-4103 25 i
dic-3 19281 l 1 PEGQEERINQE I 2 JUDGE GLEASON: This is a telephone conference 1 3 called by the Board on Emergency Planning, the OL-3 Board, 4 with the parties to communicate a decision with respect 5 to the summary disposition motions on the so-called legal 6 authority contentions and also to provide some guidance 7 with respect to the procedure from here on out. 3 Nith me here in the conference is Judge Shon 9 and Judge Kline. And I would like to have you identify 10 yourselves again for the record for the Reporter because 11 I was just prior to this trying to get to the question of 12 whether we were coming through loud and clear all richt. i3 So if we could do it in this order: with the g4 Applicant, with the Staff, with FEMA, with the Intervenors, 15 representatives of both the county and the state of 93 New York . It would be helpful. 17 MR. IRWIN: Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Irwin 18 for Long Island Lighting Company. With me are Messrs. 19 Christman and Zeugin. 20 MR. JOHNSON: This is George E. Johnson 21 representing the NRC St.aff. And 'ith me is Edwin J. Reis, 22 Office of the Staff. 23 MR. CUMMING: This is Hilliam R. Cumming, Counsel 24 for FEMA: 25 MR. LANPHER: Mr. Lanpher, Counsel for Suf folk
dic-4 19282 1 County. ,With me are Mr. Brown and Ms. Letsche. 2 MR. 2AH11LEUTER: Richard Zahnleuter representing 3 Governor Cuomo and the State of New York. 4 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Thank you. 5 l The decision of the Board with respect to l 6 the motions for summary disposition filed by the Applicant l 7 is that the Applicant has not proven that there are no 8 general issues to be heard in connection with the eight 9 issues pending before the Board, the so-called legal 10 authority issues. 11 Nor can the Board conclude that the Intervenors 12 have had an adequate opportunity to evaluate changes in 13 LILCO's Provision 9 which are relevant to the issues 14 involved. 15 Therefore, the Board is denying the motions with 16 respect to the eight contentions that are still pending 17 before the Board. 18 I do want to emphasize that the Board's decision 19 is not based on' the Intervenors ' submissions of material 20 facts. Rather it is based on the responses and the 21 af fidavits submitted thereto. 22 I wanted to state this now because our denial 23 of this motion should not be construed as affirming the 24 necessary relevance to the proceeding of those issues 25 raised in the so-called memorandum of facts, statement of
dic-5 19283 t facts. 2 Our written opinions will provide a further 3 clarification of this clarification, if you will. New 4 that is all that I really care to say with respect to the 5 decision of the Board on the motions. 6 Let me get on with the question of some guidance 7 to the parties. There is of courss considerable guidance 3 by the Commission both in the 8613 remand decision, in 9 the new rule itself, and particularly in the discussion to and commentary that accompanies the publication of that 11 rule. 12 Ne must predicate our judgements on whether , g3 LILCO's emergency plan meets the regulatory and criteria 14 requirements on the fact that government officials--state 15 and county--will produce a best efforts response to protect 16 the public's health and safety. 17 And we must presume that that response will 18 follow the LILCO plan, a presumption that is rebuttable 19 only by timely evidence that the Intervenors would follow 20 a dif ferent but adequate and feasible plan that could 21 be relied upon. 22' This of course just cites the regulatory 23 framework but it does,'it seems to us, point out that there 24 are two avenues that one could follow and can be followed. ' i 25 Let me talk for a minute on the question of
19284 dic s 1 burden of proof and burden of proceeding during the . 2 forthcoming hearing. 3 As a preliminary but important matter, let 4 me discuss our views of the issues for that hearing first. 5 And I am going to go off the record here for a minute 6 because there is one thing I have to clarify with ray 7 Board members. 8 I will be right back. It will just take a second. 9 (Discussion off the record) 10 All right. This is Judge Gleason and I am 11 back again. 12 , First of all, the Board will not permit the filing 13 of any additional motions for summary disposition with 14 respect to the so-called legal authority contentions or, 15 as a matter of fact, with respect to any of the remaining 16 issues that are before us. 17 tie , in our hopeful management of this case, 18 believe that any further filing would be an unnecessary 19 diversion to the main task and we just do not want to 20 receive any further motions in that connection. < l 21 We have to bring the remaining issues to a l 22 hearing and we'have to get them resolved at our level of l l 23 adjudication as promotly as we can do so. ' 24 It appears to us that one effect of the'new 25 rule is to have us--meaning the Board and the parties--
dic-7 i 19285 i 1 prescind, if you will, from a strict reading of the } 2 contentions remaining --contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 3 10--concerning the legal authority question. : 4 And instead, concentrate on whether the local 5 plan with its concomitant but best efforts or other response 6 meets the regulatory r,equirements. Therefore, in that 7 context the issues to be litigated have to reflect that 8 emphasis. 9 It would appear to us therefore that the 10 contentions should rais'e the issue to be litigated and 11 resolved in the following manner. I won't go through all 12 eight of the contentions because they follow pretty much 13 the same format and I will spell it out further in the 14 order that we will send out confirming this decision and this 15 guidance we are giving. 16 If we take contention 5, the issue in the light 17 of the new rule really is this: whether LILCO's emergency 18 l plan and the best efforts of the state and county governments 19 will satisfy regulatory requirements concerning the 20 activation of sirens and the directing of emergency 1 21 broadcast system messages. ' 22 I will read one more, contention 6. The issue I 23 there it seems is whether LILCO's emergency olan and 24 the best ef forts of state and county governments will 25
- satisfy the regulatory requirements concerning the making w
dic-8 19286 g of decisions and official recommendations to the pubU.c 2 on appropriate actions necessary to protect public health 3 and safety. 4 nd as I indicated before, each contention 5 should be modified to read accordingly. liow let me talk ! 6 briefly about the burden of proof and the burden of going 7 fo rward . 3 If we understand LILCO's case clearly, it is 9 basically that based on matters either adjudicated or 10 unprotested in the record, material facts accepted by the gg Board, prior decisions of the Board and relevant parts 12 .of Revision 9, it can satisfy its burden of proof that the i3 LILCO plant, supplemented by a best efforts response, will g4 be adequate to meet the standards, that adequate protection 15 measures with respect to those measures can and will be 16 , taken in the event of an emergency. g7 And therefore this ' plan does provide reasonable 18 assurance that public health and safety is not endangered gg by operation of the Shoreham facility. 20 We believe it would be, helpful, as the. Intervenors ! 21 I believe have requested, assuming the above summary is I 1 correct, that 22 since the record in this case is very l a lengthy and in many cases a different kind of circunstances 24 were prevailing at least in the minds of parties--but since 3 the record is basically so lengthy, that LILCO should
- m. .
! l dic-9 s 19287 1 cite at the outset those parts of the record on which 2 its case is partly founded. 3 That is not to say that it would foreclose 4 them from bringing up other parts. But at least we ought 5' to make an effort to keep everybody advised as the case 6 goes on as to where the foundation of the particular case 7 is with respect to the issues still in front of us. 8 Now additionally,the Commission in CLI-8613 9 has outlined five or six areas, most of which evolve around an 10 issue of time,which the Board affirms are required to be 11 addressed by the parties in the forthcoming proceeding. 12 Now once having established, assuming the 13 summary of the Applicant's case is correct, having 14 established in the record what will be essentially a prime l5 facie case on the part of LILCO, the burden of going 16 forward will then shift to the Intervenors. 17 Now its burden, simply stated, would be to 18 demonstrate that LILCO's emergency plan supplemented by 19 a best ef forts response or some other response will not 1 20 meet the adequacy standards with respect to the issues l l 21 before us. l 22 And therefore, no reasonable assurance finding ; 23 can be made as we indicated. That adequate standard of 24 course is that adequate measures will be taken and can be i 25 taken in an emergency.
dic-10 19288 t In this context, the lack of legal authority 2 cannot in our judgement be viewed as a prohibition 3 nor can protestations that state and county officials l 4 would not use the LILCO plan if another timely proffer l 5 of adequately responding in an emergency is not made. 1 6 That is a little bit of a convoluted sentence 7 or statement that I made. All we are saying in that 3 context is that there is going to be a positive responsibility 9 on the part of the Intervenors to demonstrate with 10 evidence that the LILCO plan, as I have outlined it 11 before, is inadequate. 12 And a defense of no legal authority or just 13 protestations that the state and county officials would 14 not use the plan will not be adequate in the absence of 15 another timely of fer of another adequate plan which will 16 respond to their emergency. 17 Now generally that completes the guidance which 18 the Board cares to give at this point or which the Board 19 cares to give, I might say. It really is the responsibilities 20 of the parties t~o litigate this. 21 It is not for the Board to decide the issue. 22 He will be looking forward to receiving your proposed 73 schedule and we will attempt to get out as promptly as 24 possible our written opinion on the su, mary disposition 25 motions which we have decided today.
i l dic-11 l 19289 I 1 Excuse me. I have to go off the record here 2 one more minute. ! 3 (Discussion off the record) 4 I am back now. This is Judge Gleason again. 5 I wanted to advise you that the Board has 6 granted Intervenors' motion to extend the discovery on 7 the school bus driver issue to February 28th. 8 JUDGE KLINE: 29th. 9 JUDGE GLEASON: 29th, I am sorry. 10 All right. Now are there any questions which 11 relate to clarification with' respect to things that I have 12 said either on the decision or the action with the going 13 forward of the issues?- 14 MR. LANPHER: Judge Gleason, this is .ur. Lanpher. 15 Did I hear correctly that the order which will reflect 16 these various things that people are trying to take notes 17 on will be out later today? 18 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes it will. gg MR. LANPHER: We would appreciate it, as is the 20 policy of your secretary, if she would give us a call 21 because it is difficult to take this down, the notes. 22 I would just like to state on behalf of.Suffolk 23 County that we do object to the rulings that have been 24 issued. We don't think that they are correct. He will 25 address them in an appropriate pleadings to the Board.
l I 1 dic-12 19290
! i JUDGE GLEASON: Fine.
2 MS. BRONN: This is Mr. Brown for the County. 3 Could you please provide us with some illumintation of 4 when you might be issuing an opinion of 'the reasons for the 5 Board's rulings that you made today? 6 JUDGE GLEASON: The rulings on. the summary 7 disposition motion? 8
. MR. BROWN: Yes.
9 JUDGE GLEASON: I just cannot do that. We are 10 working hard on them and we get them out as rapidly as 11 we can. It really is not essential as far as going ahead 12 with your responsibilities. You just have to know whether 13 it is a litigatable issue or it is not. 14 I cannot give you any firm date. He will try to l5 do the best we can. 16 MR. BRONN: This is "r. Brown again. There is 17 actually one way in which it does have some relevance 18 to our responsibilities to our client in particular. As 19
!!r. Lanpher mentioned a minute ago, we do have objections 20 to the rulings.
21 We in fact believe they are' fundamentally in 22 error. And it is not possible for us to bring to the 23 Board's attention the reasons for our conclusion until we 24 understand the rationale of the Board. 15 That puts us in a--
dic-13 - 19291 1 JUDGE GLEASON: I do not understand how you can 2 have any kind of a motion of fundamental error with 3 respect to decisions that have been announced or granted 4 in your interese or in your behalf. l l i 5 We were talking about the summary disposition 6 motions. 7 HR. BROWN: I think that you, if I am not 8 incorrect--and I am certainly prepared to be corrected. 9 But my understanding was that you have ruled that the 10 phraseology may be presumed and the other use of the word 11 "may" in the regulations in fact stands for the word "will" 12 and that the Board felt that it must make certain conclusions 13 which we believe are categorically contrary to the t 14 regulatory intent. i 15 l We would want to know the Board's rationale j 16 for that so that we could bring it to the Board's attention 17 and, if necessary, take any additional steps which we 18 at that point thought was in the interest of our client. l 19 JUDGE GLEASON: Well, you are talking about with 20 respect to the guidance that the. Board is giving you. 21 MR. BRONN: Perhaps. I am certainly talking about
- 22 what you said.
23 JUDGE GLEASONt Mell, I said that that was 24 guidance because you are the people that wanted the Board 15 to give guidance and we are giving it to the extent that we
. i dic-14 19292 I
have made some conclucions. And I hope to have that cut 2 today. 3 MR. BROWN. Conclusions with respect to the 4
"may be presumed" as opposed to "will be presumed" you 5
expect to have out today? 6 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes. I MR. BROWN: Thar.k you. 8 MR. JOHNSON:- Your Honor, this is George Johnson. 9 I was wondering in light of the timing of your announcement 10 this morning whether you 5tould consider extending the time Il for the parties to come up with a schedule? 12 JUDGE GLEASON I think we would consider that 13 favorably. Do you have some suggestions to make? 14 MR. JOHNSON: Waiting until Tuesday. 15 MR. LANPHER: "aiting until Tuesday . Suffolk 16 County does not object to waiting until Tuesday. This is 17
.Mr. Lanpher who is speaking. I think that makes sense.
18 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. 19 MR. IRWIN: Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Irwin. 20 We are confident that all the work can be done by Tuesday 21 and probably before. We don't object to that extention. 22 JUDGE GLEASON: Is there any objection to waiting 23 until Tuesday? 24
,19 . ZAHNLEUTER: 7.a hn le u te r . And I have no 25 objection either, especially since I have not received
dic-15 , 19293 1 any orders as of this date probably because I am in 2 Albany and it takes longer. i 3 I would appreciate the time. 4 l MR. CUMMING. FEMA defers to the Staff's 5 suggestion. 6 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Well then the Board 7 will extend the responsibilities to come up with 8 schedule requirements until next Tuesday, the close of 9 business next Tuesday. 10 MR. C'UliM ING : Thank you. 11 JUDGE GLEASON: All right, Gentlemen. That is 12 about all we have to say. 13 MR. CUMMING: Judge Gleason? 14 , JUDGE GLEASON: Yes. 15 KR. CUMl4ING : This is Bill Cumming from FEMA. 16 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes. 17 f tR. CUtiliING: Are Judge Kline and Judge Shon 18 still on? 19 JUDGE GLEASON: Yes they are. 20 gg,dVKMING: I think it might be an appropriate 21 time for me to notify the Board of a thing that we have l 22 basically notified all the parties and NRC, and that is 23 ! that FE.'dA's , review of Revision 9 this time, because of 24 the fact that now there is in fact in place a utility 25 plan rule and supplement to the NUREG which concerns
dic-16 19294 1 utility plan--FEMA would in fact be making the overall 2 bottomline finding on the plan with respect to its l 3 edequacy subject then to the conduct of the exercise. 4 So there is in fact a difference in FEMA's 5 l fundamental legal position from where we were with 6 respect to the OL-5 in the prior proceeding. 7 And I think the Board should be on notice 8 that that is our objective in a bottomline finding 9 with respect to Revision 9 and ultimately on the exercise 10 conduct. 11 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. We understand what 12 you are saying. 13 Anything else, Gentlemen? 14 MR. IRWIN: Not from LILCO, Judge Gleason. 15 MR. JOHNSON: Nothing from the Staff. 16 JUDGE GLEASON: Anything from Intervenors? 17 MR. LANPHER: No. 18 JUDGE GLEASON: All right. Thank you, 19 Gentlemen. j 20 (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the telephone l 21 i conference in this matter was concluded) l i 22 i 24 25
l CERTIFICATE - 1 2 the attached proceedings before the t 3 This is to certify that f l 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter o : ' ATOMIC SAFETY ANC LICENSING BOARD: NUCLEAR (SHOREHAM 5 Name: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY POWER STATION, UNIT 1) 6 7 Docket Number: 50-322-OL-3 Bethesda , Maryland 8 Place: February 25, 1988 Date: 9 this is the original 10 were held as herein appears, and that l 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuc ear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, the directier, d 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or un er is a of the court reporting company, and that the transcript 14 of the f re oin proceedings. true and accurate recer [8 15 h/ _ . 7-(
/s/ ,
16 25 February 88 Donna L. Cook 17 (Signature typed): of ficial Reporter 18 Heritage Reporting Corporation 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 aporting Corporation Hez...q, (202) 628-4888
1 ( l
; Document 12:
Long Island Lighting Co.. (Shoreham Nuclear Power ! Station, Unit 1), Confirmatory Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation) slip op. (February 29,1988) ; f b f 4 i 1 -i ] 1 l a f i. t i i
._-----.-,_,_.,___._m,_.. . . - _ _ . _ . -._____-,-._.,,_.....,.,m _ . , _ , . . __.- - - -- _ _- - ~ _-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon
)
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )
) (ASLBP No. 50-322-OL3-R2)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) February 29, 1988
)
I C0hFIRMATORY MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Puling on LILCO's Motions for Sumary Dis sesition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and BoarJ Guida:1ce on Issues for Litigation) l The Board confirms herein decisions and guidance provided in a telephone conference with the parties in this proceeding.
- 1. The motions for summary judgment on Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 filed by LILCO are denied. Written opinion will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
- 2. The Comission in CLI-86-13, in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(1) and in comentary accompanying publication of that new regulation, has provided considerable guidance in cases where state and local governments decline to participate in emergency planning.
- 3. Under the new regu% tion, the Board must predicate its judgment on whether LILCO's emergency plan can meet NRC regulatory and
I 2 criteria requirements on the fact that government officials--state and county--will produce a best efforts response to protect the public's health and safety. 4 There is a presumption that the State and County response will follow the LILCO Plan, a presumption rebuttable only by timely evidence that the Governments will follow a different but adequate and feasible plan that can be relied on or by other evidence of like kind. This indicates that there are two courses that can be followed.
- 5. In attempting to properly manage this case, the Board will not pemit any further motions for sumary disposition to be filsd on any of the remaining issues.
- 6. The new regulation has the effect of casting the eight contentions remaining in a revised fom--prescinding from the legal authority question--to one resolving whether the LILCO Plan with a best efforts or other response meets regulatory requirements.
- 7. The contentions should then be formulated to reflect the new I emphasis so that the issue to be litigated and resolved would read as follows in Contention 5.
Whether LILCO's emergency plan and the best efforts response of the State and County governments, will satisfy regulatory requirements concerning the activation of sirens and the directing of emergency broadcast system messages. Contention 6 would be formulated to read: 1 Whether LILCO's emergency plan and the best efforts response of the State and County governments will satisfy regulatory requirements concerning the making of decisions and official recomendations to the public on appropriate actions necessary to protect public health l
3 and safety. Each of the remaining contentions should be modified to read accordingly.
- 8. Assuming that LILCO's case is based, as we believe it alleges, on matters adjudicated or uncontested in the record, material facts previously accepted by the Board, other prior Board rulings, and relevant parts of Revision 9 to its emergency plan, and assuming questions raised by the Comission in CLI-86-13 have been addressed, a prima facie case will have been made that LILC0's burden of proof has been satisfied, that is, that LILCO's emergency plan supplemented by a best efforts response will meet the standard that adequate protective measures with respect to the contentions can and will be taken in the event of an emergency. And that consecuently, there is reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the Shoreharn facility. LILCO will be required to cite the parts of '
the record which fonn the foundation of its case.
- 9. As indicated above, the parties will be required to address the questions raised by the Commission in CLI-86-13 which are adopted by I the Board herein. These mainly raise relevant issues of time in which certain emergency actions wl'1 take place. !
l
- 10. With the development of a prima facie case as conceptualized herein, the burden of going fomard will then shift to Intervenors.
- 11. The ultimate burden of Intervenors will be to demonstrate that LILCO's emergency plan supplemented by a best efforts response does not meet the adequacy standards with respect to the matters at issue and l l
that accordingly no reasonable assurance finding can be ms.ds. l l l ;
l l t 4 , < s i I
- 12. However, a lack of legal aut.hority cannot be raised under the regulation as a response against LILC0's Plan, nor can simple protestations that the State and County will not use LILCO's Plan.
Acceptable rebuttals to the Plan must include positive statements of the projected behavior of the Governments. A detemination to respond ad hoc o would be acceptable only if cccompanied by specification of the resources available for such a response, and the actions such a response could entail including the time factors hvolved. A failure on the part of the Governments to present a positive' case for cur analysis and evaluation could result in a finding of def ault and hence in an adverse ruling on the contention to which it applies. No fair reading of the new rule or the stater,ent of considerations that accompanied it can resv72 in a conclusion that the Cccmission s expected or would pennit its rule to be interpreted in such a manur as to lead to staler. ate and indefinite delay in resolution of issues in this case or any other. The Comission's rule states in paragraph M.47(c)(1)(iii): In making its determination on the adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC will recognize the reality that in an actual emergency, state and local governments will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the;public. The NRC will determine the adequacy of that expected response, in combination with the utility's compensating measures
.... (Emphasis added.)
It is clear from the foregoing that we are bound by regulation to ' affirmatively determine the adecuacy of the expe:ted response and that the obligation on us equally binds the parties to supply the' critical information needed to make that determination in anh future hearing if
i l i l
- 1 l 5 l .
I
/
they want their views to be heard. It must bh recognized that we have found in our Concluding Partial Initial Decision that 't is not impossible "to fashion and implement an effective of/ site emergency plan for the Shoreham Plant." PIDat4$7. Any difference in wording between this Confirmatory Order and that used in the telephone conference referred to above is to be resolved in favor of this Order. The judgments of the Board reflected herein will be amplified in our written opinion. ORDERED. THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i 1 m James P. Gleason, Chaiman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l M Jfrry R. Kline ADMINISTRATIVE ubDGE f W/ Fre'derick & 3ffoK% ADMINISTRATIV ' ce Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of February,1988. i i n- . -.
UNITED SYATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
- STATE OF NEW YORK, )
MARIO M. CU,OMO, GOVERNOR, and ) COUNTY OF SUF FOLK, ) s
) ,
' Petitioners, )
)
- v. ) Docket No. 88-1121 ,
) (Consolidated with UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and ) Docket Nos. 87-1932 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) and 87-2031)
REGULATORY COMMISSION, )
)
Respondents, )
)
~
_ PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Petition for Review NEW HAMPSh7RE; NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT ) of Nuclear Regulatory AND EESOURCES COUNCIL, INC.; Commis? ion Order
)
EDISOji ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY; ) and SCIENTISTS AND ENGtNEERS FOR ) SECURE ENERGY, INC., ) ,
< )
Intervenors. )
) ,
t BMEF OF PETITIONERS NEW YORK STATE, , GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, AND SUFFOLK COI!NTY Rob t Abrams E. Thomas Boyle AttornSy General of the Suffolk County Attorney State of New York Building 138 North County Complex Alfred'L. Nardelli Veterans Mervorid Highway Assistant Attorney General Hauppauge, New York 11788 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Herbert H. Brown ' Karla.J. Letsche Fabian G. Paloraino Jonathan N. Eisenberg Special Counsel to tne Gwernor Frederick W. Yette Two World Trade Center,57th Flxr Kirkpatrick & Lockhart New York, New York 10047 1800 M Street, N.W. Washingten, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for the State of New York and for Attorneys for Suffolk County Governor Mario M. Cuomo r l March 1,1W t a w y +--
-- ---,----4 e r y -
w u -
m
*.o TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 11!
INTRODUCTION 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 3 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 A. Emergency Preparedness Requirements Adopted After the Three Mile Island Accident 3
- 1. The Absence of Emergency Preparedness Requirements Before Three Mile Island 3
- 2. Congress Responds to Three Mile Island 6
- a. Congress Prohibits Licensing of Plants Absent Emergency Preparedness 6
- b. Congress Recognizes the Potential for a State "Veto" 7
- c. Congress Insists that the NRC Apply the Same Safety Standard te State, Local and Utility Plans 11
- 3. The NRC Responds tr Three Mlle Island 12
- a. The NRC Adopts the Emergency Preparedness Rule 12
- b. The NRC Recognizes the Potential for a State "Veto" 16 B. The NRC Subverts the Emergency Preparedness Rule 18
- 1. The NRC Substitutes a Presumption for Facts
) 18
- 2. The NRC Fails to Permit Public Comment on the New Presumption 21
- 3. The NRC Cannot Justify Its Weakening of the Emergency Preparedness Rule 25 II.
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT 27 III. ARGUMENT 29 A. Standards of Review 29 d l
- 1. The Arbitrary and Capricious Standard 29
- 2. Courts Owe No Deference to the NRC When It Acts Outside Its Field of Expertise 30 B. The NRC's Rulemaking Was Arbitrary and Capricious 32
- 1. The Administrative Record Does Not Support the New Rule 32
- 2. The NRC's Explanation of the New Rule Is Inadequate 36
- 3. The New Rule Is Internally Inconsistent 40 C. The NRC's Rulemaking Violated Notice and Comment Requirements 43 ,
i IV. CONCLUSION 45 I i i l ) ) l l 0 _ _ _ . i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES : t CASES American Maritime Ass'n v. United States. 766 F.2d 545 (D.C. Cir.1985). 29 Amchem Products. Inc. v. GAF Coro. 594 F.2d 470 (5th Cir.), modified 602 F.2d 72'4 (1979). 30 Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Rv. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade. 412 U.S. 800 (1973). 31 BASF Wyandotte Coro, v. Costle. 598 F.2d 637 (1st Cir.1979), cert, denied,444 U.S. 1096 (1980) - 43 Burlington Truck Lines. Inc. v. United States. 371 U.S.156 (1962). 30 Celcom Communications Coro, v. FCC. 789 F.2d 67 (D.C. Cir.1986). 29 Center for Auto Safety v. Peck. 751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir.1985). 31 Center for Science in the Public Interest v. Dept. of Treasury. 797 F.2d 995 (D.C. Cir.1986). 31 City of Brookings Municioal Telechone Co. v. ECL 822 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir.1987). 29 Citizens for an Orderly Enerev Policy. Inc. v. Suffolk. 604 F. Supp.1084 (E.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd. 813 F.2d 570 (2d Cir.1987). 3,31,38 Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. NRC. 677 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir.1982). 45 Dalton v. United States. 816 F.2d 971 (4th Cir.1987). 31 Eagle-Picher Industries. Inc. v. EPA. 759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir.1983). 29 Federal Election Commission v. Rose. l 806 F.2d 1081 (D.C. Cir.1986). 29 ' t FCC v. RCA Communications. 346 U.S. 86 ! (1953). 30 Guard v. NRC. 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). 31,33,40-41 l
- til -
~
Kollett v. Harris. 619 F.2d 134 (1st Cir. 1980). 44 Local 777. Democratic Union Organizing Comm. v. NLRB. 603 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir.1978). 30 Long Island Lighting Co.. Docket No. 50-322-OL-3, slip op. (Feb. 29, 1988). 20 Long Island Llahting Co.. Docket No. 50-322-OL-3, slip op. (Oct. 29, 1987). 36 L_ ona Island Lightina Co. 26 NRC 201 (1987). 36 Long Island Lightina Co. 24 NRC 22 (1986). 35 Long Island Llahting Co. 22 NRC 651 (1985). 35 Long Island Lighting Co. 21 NRC 644 (1985). 35 hiotor Vehicle hifts. Ass'n v. State Farm hiutual Automobile Ins. Co. 463 U.S. 29 (1983). 30,31 NLRB v. Bildisco and Bildisco. 465 U.S. 513 (1984). 30 National Tour Brokers Ass'n v. United States. 591 F.2d 896 (D.C. Cir.1978). 43 L Natural Resource Defense Council Inc. v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1258 (1st Cir.1987). 29,43-44 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. EPA. 790 F.2d 289 (3d Cir.1986). 31 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir.1985). 29 New England Power Co. v. NRC. 683 F.2d 12 44 (1st Cir.1982). North Germany Area Council v. FLRA. 805 F.2d 1044 (D.C. Cir.1986). 29 Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electrical. Radio and hiachine Workers. I 367 U.S. 396 (1961). 26,37 l l Prospect v. Cohalan. 65 N.Y.2d 867,482 N.E.2d l 1209 (1985). 3 Robbins v. Renan. 780 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir.1985). 31 j Russell v. Law Enfort; ment Assistance Administration. ; 1 637 F.2d 1255 (9th Cir.1980). 30
- iv -
)
St. James Hoso, v. Heckler. 760 F.2d 1460 (7th Cir.1985). 31 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC. 690 F.2d 1025 (D.C. Cir.1982). 37 Sierra Club v. Costle. 657 F.2d 298 (D.C. Cir.1981). 30 Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir.1983). 43 Telocator Network of America v. FCC. 691 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir.1982). 29-30 Union of Concerned Selentists v. NRC. 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir.1987). 37 STATITTES Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. $ 553 43 Administrative Procedure Act,5 U.S.C. $ 706 29 1980 NRC Authorization Act, Pub. L. 96-295 (1980) 6-7,12 1982-83 NRC Authorization Act, Pub. L. 97-415 (1983). 12 1984-85 NRC Authorization Act, Pub. L. 98-553 (1984). 12 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Debate 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9463-84 (July 16,19~9). 7-10,31 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9601-06 (July 17,1979) 7,10 125 Cong. Rec. H.11,507 (Dec. 4,1979) 10 L 4
-v-s
Hearings Emergency Planning Around U.S. Nuclear _ Powerplants: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oversight Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Cornmittee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives. 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979). 13,31 Hearinns Before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. April 28,1987, Testimony of Victor Gilinsky 15,17-18 Reauthorization of the NRC for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 and Nuclear Energy Planning. Hearinas Before the Subcornmittee on Nuclear _ Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works U.S. Senate.100th Cong. 1st Sess. (1987) 15,17 , Reports H. Rep.103, Part 1,98th Cong.,1st Sess. (May 11,1983). 12 H.R. Rep. No. 1070,96th Cong.1st Sess. (1980). 11 S. Rep. No.176,96th Cong.,1st Sess. (1979). 6 TRANSCRIFTS OF NRC PROCEEDINGS Transcript of NRC Briefing on Emergency Planning Rule (Oct. 22, 1987). 23 Transcript of Public Meeting, Staff Presentation on Final Rulernaking on Emergency Preparedness Public Meeting (June 18, 1980). 16-17 Transcript of Telephone Frehearing Conference (February 25,1988) in Long Island Lighting Comeany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3. l 20-21,39 < RULES AND REGULATIONS , 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(a)(1) 41,42 i 10 C.F.R. $ 50.47(bX14) 42
- vi -
10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F. 42 44 C.F.R. $ 350 (1987) 31 44 Fed. Reg. 75,167 (Dec.19,1979). 13,14 45 Fed. Reg. 55,402-04 ( Aug.19,1980). 14,15,22,37 l 52 Fed. Reg. 6,980-82 (hfar. 6,1987). 21,25-26,27, 36-37,41 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078-86 (Nov. 3,1987). 18,19,20,22,24, 25,26,32,34, , 37,41,42, REPORTS ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lieutenant Governor's Office, Reoort of the Governor's Commission on Three htile Island (Feb. 26,1980). 5,6 { General Accounting Office, Comotroller _
- General's Reoort to the Congress of the -
1 United States: Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies. Rep. No. Eh!D-78-110 (1979). 3-4 Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three htile Island. The Need for Change: The Legacy of Thf!_(1979). 4,5,6 MISCELLANEOUS hiemorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency hfanagement Agency and , i Nuclear Regulatory Commission,45 Fed. Reg. 82,713 (1980), superseded at 50 Fed. Reg. 15,485 (1985). 1 31 hiemorandum to NRC Commissioners from William C. Parler, General Counsel, and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-257 (Oct.13, 1987). 22-23,43 hiemorandum to NRC Commissioners from ) William C. Parler, General Counsel and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-35 (Feb. 6,1987). 25 4
- vil - -
y r UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT i l
) [
STATE OF NEW YORK, ) : MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR, and ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) i ) Petitioners, )
)
- v. ) Docket No. 88-1121
) (Consolidated with UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and . ) Docket Nos. 87-2032 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR ) and 87-2933) :
REGULATORY COMMISSION, ) l
) t P sspondents, ) i
) I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Petition for Review -
NEW HAMPSHIRE; NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT ) of Nuclear Regulatory AND RESOURCES COUNCIL, INC.; ) Commission Order
) EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE; ) - ! LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY; ) * ! and SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR ) ,
j SECURE ENERGY, INC., ) !
! ) . ! Intervenors. )
[
)
- i BRIEF OF PETITIONERS NEW YORK STATE, i GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO. AND SUFFOLK COUNTY !
i New York State, Governor Cuomo and Suffolk County ("Petitioners") submit this 4 brief in support of their petition challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's i ("NRC") October 29,1987 new emergency planning rule. l INTRODUCTION 1
- This case presents the following issuet did the NRC act arbitrarily and I capriciously by eliminating emergency preparedness requirements adopted in response to
] the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, and by authorizing dispositive safety findings to j i
l be made on the basis of a presumption rather than actual evidence. The presumption is ' that state and local governments will follow a utility's plan for responding to a nuclear accident. As interpreted by the NRC, the presumption applies even if those governments have lawfully declared that they will not follow the utility's plan and have explained the bases for their decision. The presumption is irrebuttable as applied to state and local governments that have declined to adopt or submit their own emergency response plans. Petitioners contend that the presumption is outside the Commission's expertise, not supported by the administrative record, and inconsistent with the Commission's own regulations. In addition, the NRC's justification for its adoption is demonstrably false, t The NRC's new rule nullifies Congress' recognition that state and local governments have a critical role in emergency preparedness and response, that their ' decisions not to adopt or implement emergency plans should be respected, and that decisions by such governments not to adopt plans of their own could result in the NRC being required to deny an operating license for a nuclear plant. The NRC's new rule sacrifices public safety by authorizing the licensing of nuclear plants without evidence, much less the required reasonable assurance, that emergency response plans supporting the licenses will be imolemented to protect the public from the consequences of a i nuclear accident. l Petitioners also contend that the NRC violated the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The rule as originally ' r proposed did not include the presumption. The NRC added that element to its new rule i I in the eleventh hour of its rulemaking, within seven days of announcing the final rule. l Thus, the NRC denied state and local governments, and the public that would be at risk I l in a nuclear accident, the opportunity to comment and demonstrate that the new rule is 1 t ! insupportable in fact, law, and policy. l [ , l l 2-1
?
STATEMENT OF INTERESl Petitioners have a direct interest in the rulemaking at issue. First, they partici-pated in the rulemaking and opposed adoption of the rule. Second, they are participating in pending NRC licensing proceedings for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"), in which the new rule is being applied.l_/ STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES (1) Whether the NRC's adoption of the new emergency planning rule was arbitrary and capricious. (2) Whether the NRC's adoption of the new emergency planning rule violated the notice and comment requirements of the APA. L STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Emergency Preparedness Requirements Adopted After the Dree Mile Island Accident
- 1. ne Absence of Emergency Preparedn_es_s Lequirements Before nree Mile Island Before the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant ("TMI"), the NRC a
essentially ignored emergency planning around nuclear power plants.2/ Even before the Il Petitioners have exercised their governmental authority and have declined to adopt or implement an emergency response plan for Shoreham. Shoreham's owner, the : Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), challenged Petitioner Suffolk County's decision ; not to adopt a plan in federal and state courts. LILCO urged that the County's decision violates both federal and state law. The courts rejected LILCO's challenge, finding the County's actions to be rational and lawful. Citizens for an Orderly Enerzy Policy. Inc. v. County of Suffolk. 604 F. Supp.1084 (E.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd. 813 F.2d 570 (2d Cir.1987); Prospect v. Cohalan. 65 N.Y.2d 867,482 N.E.2d 1209 (1985). ; 2_/ The NP.C did not require advance preparedness to respond to radiological emergencies for two reasons: (footnote continued) 4 l l TMI accident, a General Accounting Office ("GAO") Report identified the absence of i emergency planning requirements as a major failing in the regulation of nuclear power. Rejecting the NRC's justification that accidents at nuclear power plants are unlikely, the GAO concluded: (W}hile serious nuclear accidents may be highly unlikely, they are possible, and may have catastrophic consequences. Therefore, we believe that adequate State and local emergency-response plans are more than a matter of prudence but should be an integral part of the licensing process 2/ The hiarch 28, 1979 accident at the TMI plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, dramatically changed nuclear plant regulation. That accident, characterized then as "the worst . . . In the history of commercial nuclear power generation,"4/ focused the attention of the President, Congress, the public, and ultimately the NRC, on the need for (footnote continued from previous page) (1) The NRC maintained that it protected public health and safety by regulating site characteristics and design features of nuclear facilities; and, (2) The NRC believed that emergency planning was principally a responsibility of State and local governments and that the NRC did not have statutory authority over State and local governments to require them to develop or maintain emergency plans. General Accounting Office, Comotroller General's Report to the Congress of the United States: Areas Around Nuclear Facilities Should Be Better Prepared for Radiological Emergencies. Rep. No. EMD-78-110, at 47-48 (1979) (NRC Comments). i )_/ Ld at 49. GAO ctated further: We believe that only by linking the adequacy of the State or local i capabilities to implement offsite protective actions to the licensing process can there be sufficient assurance that the public will be protected in the event of a major emergency at a nuclear powerplant. . . . Thus, if State or local authorities are unable to provide such assurance, then a potential site should be eliminated 1 from consideration during the licensing process. Id., at 45. q 1 4/ Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. The Need for Chanae The Legacy of TMI(1979) at 1. 1 1 1 (
immediate action to increase the protection available to the public in case similar or more serious accidents occurred in the future. Following TMI, the NRC's failure to require detailed and workable emergency response plans as a prerequisite to the licensing of nuclear plants produced a torrent of criticism. Virtually every investigation of the accident concluded that the lack of ade-quate and implementable emergency response plans was a serious safety problem which required immediate attention. The twelve-member Kemeny Commission, appointed by President Carter to inves-tigate the TMI accident and the response to it, concluded that the response "was domi-nated by an atmosphere of almost total confusion."l/ The Commission noted that "(iln an accident in which prompt defensive steps are necessary within a matter of hours, insuffi-cient advance planning could prove extremely dangerous."$/ Like the GAO, the Kemeny Commission also laid responsibility for the chaotic response to the TMI accident on the low priority given to emergency planning by the NRC. It, too, attributed the NRC's pre-TMI attitude to the NRC's "confidence in de-signed reactor safeguards" aad its "desire to avoid raising public concern about the safety of nuclear power."7/ Af ter finding that "the NRC is so preoccupied with the licensing of 1/ Id. at 17. $/ Id. at 16. The absence of workable and tested emergency plans contributed to the chaos and confusion which dominated the scene during and immediately after the TMI accident. The majority of the communities in the TMI area had no written emergency plans to respond to the accident. Instead, emergency planning for five, ten and twenty-mile evacuation radii had to take place as the accident was unfolding. Many state and local, governmental and private entities had to participate in the response; they all attempted to deal with the emergency, and with the problems created by it, on an ad hoc basis. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lieutenant Governor's Office, Report of the Governor's Commission on Three Mile Island (1980) at 74,81,82,84-85. 7./ Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (1979) at 38. plants that it has not given primary consideration to overall safety issues,"8/ the Kemeny Commission unanimously recommended, among other things, that the NRC "condition licensing upon review and approval of the state and local emergency plans."9/
- 2. Congress Respoods to 'Ihree Mile faland
- a. Congress Prohibits Licensine of Plants Absent Emergency Preparedness Congress reacted swiftly to the lessons learned from TMI about the need f6r actual emergency preparedness, and for detailed, workable, and tested emergency plans.
In fact, Congress' consideration of the fiscal year 1980 authorization for the NRC was "dominated by the immediate consequences and the long-term implications of the acci-dent at (TMI)."M/ The Congressional response to TMI was reflected in the 1980 Authori-zation Act, particularly Section 109, in which Congress required the NRC: (1) to determine whether each applicant for a license to operate a nuclear power plant had submitted a state, local or utility emergency response plan that provides "rea-8_/ I_d_. at 51. 9_/ Id. at 24. See also id at 76 (NRC should not grant an operating license for any new plant until the state where it is to be sited has an emergency response plan reviewed l and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")). The Commis-slon appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to report on TMI agreed: (T}he federal approval process advocated by the President's' Commission on TMIls essential to assure the public that no new nuclear reactors will start up in areas lacking adequate emer-gency planning. l Report of the Governor's Commission on Three Mile Island (1980) at 118. ' M/ S. Rep. No.176, 96th Cong.,1st Sess.1 (1979). sonable t.ssurance that public health and safety is not endangered by the operation of the facility concerned;"M/ and (2) to promulgate regulations establishing minimum requirements for such a pland_2/
- b. Congress Recognizes the Potential for a State "Veto" In considering the 1980 Authorization Act, Congress sought to reconcile two competing concerns: first, Congress' post-TMI insistence ihat adequate emergency planning and preparedness exist for every licensed nuclear plant; and second, Congress'-
recognition that state and local governments are responsible for emergency planning and therefore can, in their discretion, withhold support for planning activities. The Senate version of the 1980 Authorization Act, S. 562, would have directed each applicant for an operating license for a nuclear plant to submit to the NRC a state emergency response plan. In addition, S. 562 would have conditioned the NRC's ability to license a plant on the existence of a state emergency response plan that adequately protects the public health and safety.M/ It also would have required the NRC to adopt rules setting forth minimum requirements for emergency planning, including "initial and periodic testing of plan feasibility in actual drills of State and local organizations which are assigned responsibilities to carry out portions of the plan."M/ Senator Hart, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee, characterized the bill as reflecting a fundamentallesson learned from TMI- that reactors should not be permitted to operate M/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appropriation Authorization, Pub. L. No. 96-295,
$ 109(a)(2),94 Stat. 780,784 (1980). See attached Addendum to Brief of Petitioners.
M/ Id. at $ 109(b)(1)(A). M/ 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9604 (daily ed. July 17, 1979). M/ Id. at S. 9475. i i
without the existence of "fundamental plans made to accommodate an accident and to protect the lives, the safety, and the health of the people in the area."15/ During the Senate debate on S. 562, senators recognized that some states might refuse to develop emergency plans.E/ In view of that fact, and rather than allowing states to prevent the NRC from licensing a plant, Senator Johnston offered an amendment that*would have permitted the NRC itself to develop an emergency plan for any plant in a state that did not submit a plan in compliance with NRC regulations, and then to license the plant on the basis of the NRC's plan.M/ Senator Johnston framed the question confronting the Senate as follows: The issue is narrow; the issue is clear. Do you want a moratori-um on a plant where a State either refuses, as is the probable case of California, or, through inadvertence or through honest mistake or through whatever reason workable plan within the deadlina?l.,8/, falls properly to submit a Senator Johnston's amendment was opposed on fundamental federalism principles. Senators stressed that the Johnston amendment would inject the federal government into an area squarely within the states' traditional police powers and would present significant constitutional problems.M/ Senator Hart stated these concerns succinctly: What is contemplated here by the Senator from Louisiana . . . is a fundamental shift in government authority. It is a funda-mental tampering with the federal system. It would give some authority to the Federal Government which has never before been obtained by the Federal Government in this area. I think M/ R. at S. 9476. 16] See 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9463-84 (daily ed. July 16,1979). H/ R. at S. 9471. l 18_/ R. at S. 9476. M/ R. at S. 9472-80. 1 1 I I
)
i
Senators who vote on this shoul 2 very fundamental political point.pu/ynderstand that. It is a very, Senators who addressed this issue acknowledged that states might refuse to develop emergency plans and thereby prevent the operation of a nuclear plant. For example, Senator Simpson acknowledged that there was a possibility that a "faction opposed to nuclear power could use the mandatory planning requirements spelled out in this bill to t arbitrarily shut down the operation or construction of a nuclear power plant."E/ None-theless, Senator Simpson opposed the Johnston amendment: To propose that Congress now authorize the NRC to invade an area of traditional State authority in providing for the planning of the evacuation and sheltering of its citizens during times of natural or man-made disaster is against my se of inherent distinction between State and Federal Governments / Moreover, the Senate recognized that the states, rather than the federal government, 4 could best perform emergency planning functions given their familiarity with local y resources and needs.E/ Indeed, Senator Simpson equated the role of the states in the emergency planning process to the state role in land-use planning: i I When we . . . allow () the Federal Government to intrude into this i area, we are actually in the most sensitive of areas because we l are saying to the States, 'You cannot do your own State land-use planning.' ,
\
1 1 f 2.2/ M. at S. 9476. . 21/ M. at S. 9473. 1 M/ Id, at S. 9473. E/ M. at S. 9476. 1 I,
-9 ,
4 _m, , --m . - . . , -. . . , - -.,.. . , , , . ,,m.. . . , - ,
l v Emergency planning in the State is really land-use planning plus, I with oak leaf clusters. It consists of eva highway usage and much, much more.0/ cuation zones, shelters, After full consideration of the federalism issues, and recognizing that without the - Johnston amendment the Senate bill could permit a state "veto" of plant licensing, the Senate defeated the Johnston amendment.2_5/ Senator Hart subsequently stated the effect of the Senate's vote: (T]he Senate has . . . rejected the idea of the Federal Govern-ment imposing its will on the States in the area of emergency plannin This is an area traditionally set aside for the States / In December 1979, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 2608, the House version of the 1980 Authorization Act, which also responded to the lessons learned from TMI.21/ Like the Senate bill, the House version would have required the NRC to adopt standards for evaluating state emergency plans, to assess the adequacy of such plans, and ; to review the actual ability of a state to carry out evacuations during a radiological emergency. Unlike the Senate bill, it would not have conditioned the licensing and operation of nuclear plants on the existence of an NRC-approved state plan. M/ M. at S. 9473. 2,5/ M. at S. 9478. S. 562 was passed by the full Senate on July 17,1979. 125 Cong. I Rec. S. 9601-06 (daily ed. July 17,1979). 2_6/ R. at S. 9480. Zl/ 125 Cong. Rec. H. 11,507-08 (Dec. 4,197.9).
- c. Conrrens Insists that the NRC Aonly the Same Safety Standard to State. Local. and Utilnty Pl=?=
A Senate-House conference committee addressed the differences between S. 562 and H.R. 2608.5/ Consistent with the defeat of the Johnston amendment, the compromise bill did not require states to submit emergency plans or authorize the NRC to impose an emergency plan on an unwilling state. The compromise bill retained the Senate requirement that no license can be issued unless there is in place a plan that will adequately protect the public health and safety in an emergency. In response to concerns that a state could prevent the issuance of an operating license by refusing to develop a plan, the conferees "sought to avoid penalizing an applicant for an operating license if a State or locality does not submit an emergency i response plan to the NRC for review" by permitting the NRC to consider a "utility plan" in the absence of a shte or local plan.2_1/ Consistent with Congress' original post-TMI direction, however, the conferees authorized the NRC to grant an operating license il j and only if a state, local or utility plan provided "reasonable assurance that the public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility."E/ In addition, the Conference Report reiterated Congressional expectations, prompted by the TMI accident, that the NRC would adopt minimum requirements for emergency plans, including "initial and periodic testing of plan feasibility in actual drills."El 28_/ H.R. Rep. No. 1070,96th Cong.,1st Sess. 5-6 (1980). 2.1/ R. at 27. A "utility plan" refers generally to an emergency response plan, prepared by the utility company-license applicant, inhich describes how that company would conduct an emergency response and protect the public in the area around the nuclear plant. M/ R. 3_1/ R. at 27.
v Thus, in enacting the 1980 Authorization Act Congress made the following dect-sions: (1) No plant should operate unless there is an NRC-approved emergency plan. Congress specifically rejected the idea that an ad itqs, response, such as occurred at Thil, could be sufficient. (2) The federal government should not seek to force state and local governments to adopt an emergency plan. Congress recognized that emergency planning is an area of state and local authority, expertise, and responsibility. (3) The NRC could consider a utility's emergency response plan but could grant a license only if the plan provided "reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility concerned." Conaress did not insure that a utility would have the active support or resources of state or local novernments in car-rving out its own "utility plan" or that, without such support or resources. It would be able to meet the actual preparedness requirements established in response to the Thil accidentJ2/
- 3. Ibe NRC Res;qrwis to Three Milg_ Island,
- a. The NRC Adopts the Eme_rgency Prgpansings Rule _
Tht! also forced the NRC to change dramatically its views about the importance 3,2/ Congress addressed the issue of emergency planning two more times, in enacting the 1982-83 and the 1984-85 NRC Authorization Acts. Pub. L. 97-415 (1983); Pub. L. 98-553 (1984). Section 5 of Pub. L. 97-415 and Section 108 of Pub. L. 98-553 provide that the NRC may license a nuclear power plant only if a state, local or utility plan provides reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will be protected. Congress has never reacted from its post-Tht! Insistence on actual preparedness and adequate, implementable response plans. In fact, the House Report on the House version of the 1984-85 Authorization Act stressed that while the NRC could consider a utility plan, the Commission was not authorized to license a plant "when lack of participation in emergency planning by State, county, or local governments means it is unlikely that a utility plan could be successfully carried out." H. Rep.103, Part 1,98th Cong.1st Sess. 9 (1983). l l l
of emergency planning. As then-NRC Chairman Hendrie testified before Congress in hiay 1979: The accident at Three hille Island has made it very clear that emergency planning and preparedness is a major and integral part of nuclear regulation. I do not think that any one needs to be persuaded that thorough emergency preparedness is an essential component in the regula-tory structure protecting public health and safety 33/ The NRC responded to TMI and to Congressional pressures in December 1979 by publishing for comment a proposed emergency planning rule.3_4/ The Commission acknowledged what Congress and the TMI analysts had already observed: The proposed rule is predicated on the Commission's considered l Judgment in the af termath of the accident at Three Mile Island l that safe siting and design engineered features alone do not i optimize protection of the public health and safety. Before the accident it was thought that adequate siting in accordance with existing staff guidance coupled with the defense-in-depth ap-preach to design would be the primary public protection. Emer-gency planning was conceived as a secondary but additional measure to be exercised in the unlikely event that an accident would happen. The Commission's perspective was severely altered by the unexpected sequence of events that occurred at Three Mile Island. The accident showed clearly that the erotec-tion provided by sitine and engineered safety features must be b__oLstered by the ability to take protective measures durine the
~
course of an accident.B/ Moreover, the Commission specifically tied the need to verify the existence of adequate and implementable emergency plans to its obligation under the Atomic Energy Act to l I protect the public health and safety: l l 3_3./ Emergency Plannine Around U.S. Nuclear Powerplants: Nuclear Reculatory Commission. Hea_rjngs before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations of the House of Representatives. 96th Cong.,1st Sess. 528 (1979). 34/ 44 Fed. Reg. 75,167 (1979). 35/ Lt. at 75,169 (emphasis added). l l l m j [I]n carrying out its statutory mandate to protect the public health and safety, the Commission must be in a position to know that off-site government plans have been reviewed and found adequate. The Commission finds that the public can be pro-tected within the framework of the Atomic Energy Act only if 4 additional attention is given to emergency response planningd_6_/ After public hearings and an extended comment period, the Commission adopted its final emergency planning rule in August 1980.32/ The heart of the rule was its re-quirement that there be a pre-!! censing finding that emergency plans, judged to be "ade-j quate" and in compliance with many specific requirements, also be capable of being i l implemented: 1 [N]o operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued ; unless a finding is made by NRC that the state of onsite and , offsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures epn ar.u will be taken in the ; event of a radiological emergency.38g l t j The requirement that there be a finding that an emergency plan is implementable (Le i that adequate and protective measures can and will be taken), grew directly out of the TMI experience, which showed that an ad_ hoc response to an emergency rather than one i ; j based on a plan that has been practiced and determined to be workable by the persons who are to carry it out, is ineffective and counterproductive. i The NRC's 1980 emergency planning rule reiterated in many provisions the unac-a ceptability, for !! censing purposes, of reliance upon an ad hoc response formulated during i an actual emergency. For example, the rule provided that the required finding on the , state of preparedness must be based on a "review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency ; J l 1 3_6/ g. : i 31/ 45 Fed. Reg. 55,402 (1980)(codified in 10 CFR Part 50(1980)). i i I 3_8/ Ld. at 55,409 (10 CFR 5 50.47(a)(1)(1980))(emphasis added). ! 1 1 0
, _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ ,y ... .,, % ~ , ,_ . - ..___ _, .-,_.- -,.._,
m plans are adequate and capable of being implemented . . . .".39/ The rule required that there be periodic "exercises" and "drills" of offsite emergency plans "to evaluate major ' portions of emergency response capabilities" and "to develop and maintain key skills."4E/ And, it required participation by appropriate state and local government agencies in "full scale" and "small scale" exercises, which test the adequacy of timing and content of implementing pro-
~
cedures and methods, test emergency equipment and communi-cation networks, test the public notification system, and ensure that emergency organization personnel are familiar with their duties.41/ Victor Gilinsky, an NRC Commissioner in 1980, described "what the Commission had in mind" when it adopted its 1980 rule 1 The 1979 TMI accident had convinced us that the Atomic Energy Act's standard of "adequate protection" had to embrace readiness to shelter or evacuate paople around an accident. Such offsite readiness could not depend on improvisation. It required effective plans for state and local governmental { actions, trained state and local staffs, and periodic exercises to i make sure the plans would work.42/ ' l l 3.,9/ R. ($ 50.47(a)(2) (1980)) (emphasis added). 42/ M. ($ 50.47(b)(14)(1980)). 4l./ M. at 55,413 (Appendix E 5 IV.F (1980)). 42/ Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on interior and Insular Affairs _ (Apr. 28, 1987), Testimony of Victor Gilinsky at 1. S.ig.a_ho_ Testimony of former NRC Commissioner John F. Ahearne, in Reauthorization of the NRC for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 and Nuclear Enerav Planning. Hearings Before thg Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public. Works U.S. Senate. 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 260 (1987) ("the regulations that we promulgated were necessary for adequate protection of the public health and safety").
- b. 'Ibe NRC_ Recognizes the Potential for a State "Veto" i
In adopting the 1980 rule, the NRC acknowledged - as had Congress - that the l utility industry had criticized the proposed rule as "in effect giving State and local j governments veto power over the operation of nuclear plants."13./ Notwithstanding these criticisms, the NRC promulgated the rule. In language similar to that used by Senator Simpson in opposing the Johnston amendment, the NRC stated its rationale as follows: l i The Commission recognizes there is a possibility that the opera-tion of some reactors. may be affected by this rule through inaction of State and local government or an inability to comply ; with these rules. The Commission believes that the potential _ , astriction of olant operation by State and local officials is not pianificantly different in kind or effect from the means already available_under existina law to orchibit reactor operation, such as zoning, and land-use laws, certification of public convenience and necessity, State financial and rate considerations (10 CFR 50.33(f)) and Federal environmental laws. . . . The Commission i believes . . . that State and local officials as partners in this , undertaking will endeavor to provide fully for public protec-tion. i/ Indeed, in briefing the Commission on the 1980 rule, the NRC Staff emphasized that the potential for state or local governments "veto" by their "failure . . . to develop and/or implement an acceptable emergency plan . . . thereby blocking licensing and/or ' t operation," is "inherent" in the rule; that the possibility was "specifically recognized"; l that "other potential state and local 'vetos' already exist" such as building permits; and that it "could become a major problem in some future licensing cases."iS/ l
$3/ 45 Fed. Reg. at 55,405. The NRC noted that such commenters had "felt that utilities, their customers, and their shareholders should not be penalized by a shutdown (with a resulting financial burden) because of alleged deficiencies or lack of cooperation by State and local officials." Ld. $i/ Ld. at 55,404 (emphasis added).
35/ Sss. Transcript of Staff Presentation on Final Rulemaking on Emergency Prepared-ness Public Meeting (June 18,1980) at 62, and Slide No. 9 in "Commission Briefing." The (footnote continued) l I i
At least three of the five persons who were Commissioners at the time the NRC adopted the 1980 emergency planning rule have publicly stated that they fully understood the potential for a state "veto." Former Commissioner Bradford, in a comment letter opposing the Commission's proposed rule, stated: The statements to the effect that the Commission assumed in 1980 that all state and local governments would cooperate are absolutely wrong. . . . (C]oncerns were raised to the effect that a state might, by non-cooperation, render a plant unlicensable. For my own part, I believe (then as now] that state governments would behave responsibly and that responsible behavior might include refusal to legitimize inadequate emergency response measures by participating in their preparation or in their practice.5/ l Former Commissioner John A. Ahearne testified: (!) recognized that State and local governments could have a veto. But I also recognized that unless the form of government in the U.S. were to change, the veto possibility was a necessary condition for the use of nuclear power.ill Former Commissioner Victor Gilkinsky recently testified: We were quite clear in 1980 about the consequences of relying on state and local governments for the necessary increase in emergency preparedness. It is all very well to talk about federal " preemption, but there was, and is, no federal alternative in the (footnote continued from previous page) Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards similarly commented that the "veto" possibility "is inherent in the basic concept of the rule," but noted that "if it develops, adequate provisions to assure health and safety of (the] public must take precedence." I.d_. at Slide No.15. 16/ Comments of former Commissioner Peter A. Bradferd, April 2,1987. 17/ Reauthorization of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 and Nuclear Emergency Planning, Hearings befole the Subcommittee _ on Nucletr_ Regulation of the Cornmittee on Environment and Public Works United States Sena.it, 100th Cong.,1st sess. 262 (1987). neighborhoods of power reactors to the police powers of local and state governments. Without that active involvement emergency plans around nuclear plants were, and are, meaningless. I don't think anyone looked forward to tne possibility, but we realized these governments might not participate, and that the NRC could not force them to do so. In fact, one reason why offsite emergency preparedness had previously been handled on a voluntary basis was the fear that then-Governor Brown would use this issue to bar nuclear plant operation in California. Af ter a close call at Three Mile Island, we decided such concerns cou!4 no longer be permitted to hold back needed public protection 18/ Thus, while both the Congress and the Commission anticipated cooperation from j most state and local governments with respect to emergency planning, they also clearly I acknowledged the possibility that some state and local governments might decline to participate in the emergency planning process. Indeed, they specifically recognized that such non participation could prevent r clant from being licensed to operate. B. De NRC Subverts the Emergency Preparedness _Byal l l
- 1. De NRC Substitutes a Presu_mption for Facts On October 29, 1987, the NRC adopted a new emergency planning rule. Its stated purpose is:
l to provide criteria for the evaluation at the operating license review stage of utility prepared emergency plans in situations in which state and/or local governments decline to participate further in emergency planning $ l l l 18/ Hearines before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment on Interior and i Insular Affairs (Apr. 28, 1987), Testimony of Victor Gilinsky at 2-3. 19/ 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078 (1987). I 1 i l The new rule permits the NRC to license a plant notwithstangna non-comsliance wit}t emergency planning requirements. If the *non-compliance "is wholly or sub tantially the result of the non participation of state and/or local governments."M/ \ l Under the new rule, the NRC intends to make the required public safety finding c!
"reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" based solely upon a review of an emergency response plan prepared and exercised only by the utility and its personnel. The new rule proposes to make the required implementability finding - that is, to determine both the Adequacy of preparednest and the adequacy of the likely response itself - by engaging Ls presumptions and hypotheses about what non-participating governments would do in the event of an actual emergency. Thus, the central feature of the new rule is the following provistom Li making its determination oa the adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC will recognize the reality that in an actual emergency, state and local government ofC:nts will exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public. The NRC will determine the adequacy of that expected response, in com-bination with the utility's compensating measures, on a case-by-case basis, subject to the following guidance. In addressing the circumstance where applicant's inability to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is wholly or t.ub-stantially the result of non participation of state and/or local governments, it may be presumed that in_thtqvent of an actual radiolocical emergency state and local offigjoh0vould renerally, follow the utility plan. However, this preJumplio_q may3, rebutted by, for example, a cood faith and timely proffer of an adequ_ ate and feasible state and/or locaLradioloeica_1 emercenev plan tliat would in fact be relied upon ut a radiological emercency.2.1/
M/ R. at 42,086. 11/ M. (emphasis added). d [ t 4 The new rule also eliminates entirely the requirement of governmental participation in l emergency plan exercises ~5,,2/ 1 The language of the new rule suggests that the use of the presumption is not
- mandatory, and that the presumption can be rebutted by the submission of evidence in j "case-by-case adjudications."M/ But, the NRC he; interpreted the rule to establish a dg i
facto irrebuttable presumptions if state and local governments do not submit their own adequate plan, the NRC will presume conclusively that the governments will follow a utility's plan. This conclusive presumption applies even in the face of sworn statements, by the very government officials whose actions the rule is supposed to predict, which i explain in detail why they would rap _1 follow a utility's plan in a "best offorts" response. l On February 25,1988, the NRC's Licensing Board held that under the new rule, it i "must presume" that a "best efforts" response by government officials "will follow the (utility) plan," and that that presumption "is rebuttable enh n by timely evidence that the [ [ governments] would follow a different but adequate and feasible plan that could be j relied upon."M/ The Board held, further, that in the adjudication of the adequacy of the j utility plan "as supplemented by the best efforts response," "protestations that state and county officials would not use the (utility) plan
- yLquid n91be accepted "in the absence of f
)
i b2/ Id> Sl/ ti. M/ Tanscript of Telephone Prehearing Conference (Feb. 25, 1988) in Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3, at 19,283 (emphash added). Sgg attached Addendum to Brief of Petitioners. On February 29, 1988, Petitioners received a written order which confirms the Board's oral rulings, lapa Island Lightina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Un!t 1) Confirmatory Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation (Feb. 29, 1988). Eggattached Addendum to Brief of Petitioners. i
_ m 7 l r 4 (a] timely offer of another adequue plan which will be [used to) respond to the emergency."S/ Thus, the NRC has interprethd its new rule as, in effect, establishing an irrebut-table presumptior.j6/ If governmenti,60 tiot submit their own adequate plans, the NRC will presume conclusively that these governments will follow a plan prepared by a utility, gre3 if those novernaients have stated, and explained wh'. they would not follow that plan.
- 2. The NRC Falls to Permit Public Comment on the NettPresumption The evidentiaty presumption which lies at the heact of the NRC's new rule -- that state and local governments will follow a utility's plan - was not even in the proposed rule wht h the NRC ipubliced for comment on March 6,1987J7/ Thus, althe:gh the proposed rule generaad mo e comments than any NRC rule in history, rone of the more M/ Id. at 19,278-ef. In the Shoreham proceeding, the NRC Licensing Board refused to accept swcrn statements by New York Governor Mario Cuorro and 'Seffolk County Exectiu Patrick G. Halpin which explained in detail why those governments (1) hava not
{ and will not ado % a plan, and (2) wo!dd not follow the utility's plan, even in an ' emergency situation. As noted, both federal and state courts have held that the governmental determination not to adopt or implement a plan for Shoreham is rational and lawful. See n.1 above. S/ The ody "rebuttel" the NRC will accept is an act which, by definition, a non-participating government has already decided not to perform - that is, the submittal of its own emerpmer response plan. i H/ The new r de as originally proposed would have permitted the NRC to license a plant notwithstanding non-com?!fance with the emirgency planning requirements, if the non-compliance arose "substantially from a lack cf participation in the development or ' implementation of offsite emergency planning by & State or loul government," and if: (1) the non-compliance could be remedied de compense.ted for by governmental. cooperation; and (2) the utility's offsite response plan included mear.ures, to compensate for the lack of cooperation, "which are reasonable and achievable" and which "take into account a likely State or local respon.,e to an actual emergency." 52 Fed. Reg. 6,980, 6,981 (1987). t u
.4 l
than 38,000 commenters were able to provide the NRC with views on the validity or impact of the evidentiary presumption which is the central feature of the rule ultimately adopted.58/ Furthermore, the extensive comments on the proposed rule prompted the NRC Staff to recommend that the Commission clarify its proposal, to respond to "the wide-spread uncertainty as to the rule's intent."59/ The Staff's analysis and recommendations highlight the fundamental change in the approach of the final rule, as compared to the rule proposed for comment. i On October 13, 1987, the Staff recommended inclusion of the following language 1 in the final rule: In making its determination on the adequacy of a utility plan, the NRC will recognize the reality that in an actual emergency, state and local government officials will exercise their best g efforts to protect the health and safety of the public, and will take account of the likely response of such officials, to be determined on a case-by-case basisA0/ At the same tin.e, the Staff provided for the Commission's review a draft Federal Regis-ter notice to accompany the final rule recommended by the Staff. In the draft, the Staff made clear that the rule as proposed and commented upon included no presumption aoout the nature of the expected "best efforts" government response. The Staff explained that its recommendation that the Commission recognize the so-called "best efforts" "reality": 5_8/ According to the Commission,11,500 individual letters were sent to the NRC, 27,000 form letters were sent to Congress or the White House and forwarded to the NRC, and 16,300 persons signed petitions to the NRC. 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,079. In contrast, when the original emergency planning rule was adopted in 1980, the NRC received approximately 200 comment letters. 45 Fed. Reg. at 55,404. l 5.2/ Memorandum to NRC Commissioners from William C. Parler, General Counsel, and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-257 (Oct.13,1987) at 5.
$9/ I_d. at 33 (emphasis added).
makes no assumptions as to the precise actions which state and local governments would take (such as whether the state and local governments 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 individual adiudicatory proceedings.21/ _ The Staff reiterated its understanding of the proposed rule in a formal briefing of the Commissioners on October 22, 1987: {T]he rule makes no assumption as to precisely what (govern-ment) officials would do - or how effective their effort will be; that would be lef t for evaluation in individual cases.6_2/ The Staff told the Commission that the majority of the commenters on the pro-posed rule "viewed the rule as a major substantive change in the Commission's safety standards." The Staff stated, however, that with its recommended "clarifications," the rule "is considerably more modest in its purposes and its intended effect."63/ 1 Clearly, therefore, as late as October 22, 1987, more than six months af ter the proposed rule was published for comment, even the NRC Staff had no inkling that the Commission's final rule would contain the presumption ultimately adopted. Two days before the October 22 Commission briefing held to discuss the comments on the proposed rule, however, two members of Congress, Congressmen Ralph hl. Hall and Charles Pashayan, Jr., had written to the NRC Chairman, complaining about the Staff's recommendations. They objected that the proposed rule, as interpreted by the Staff, (1) would require case-by-case adjudication, and (2) included no assumptions about the nature of the governments' response to an accident. The Congressmen recommended 6_1/ Id. at Attachment A at 21 (emphasis added). 6,2_/ Transcript of NRC Briefing on Emergency Planning Rule (Oct. 22,1987) at 23. See also_ id. at 36, 6,3/ hiemorandum to NRC Commissioners from William C. Parler, General Counsel, and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-257 IOct.13,1987) at 3.
that the Commission adopt, instead, "a broad set of assumptions" that would insure favorable licensing decisions without requiring findings of fact about the nature or adequacy of a governmental "best efforts" response. The Congressmen stated: [T]he staff is reluctant to engage in assumptions and to circum-scribe adjudicatory hearings so as to make the rule workable.
. . . The staff is prepared to assume that such officials will use their best efforts in the event of an accident. But such an a:sumption, confined as it is, leaves unanswered such questions as:
Will the officials make use of the utility plan? Will the officials develop their own? Will they carry out either in an actual emergency? Exactly how will they do so? [G]iven that licensing boards will have available to them only a utility plan . . . and an understanding that such officials will do their best a_d_ hoc in an emergency, it will be difficult to make the finding that adequate protective measures can and will be taken. Even a hearing demonstrating that the utility plan is exceptionally strong may well not support such a finding. [Wie feel that the Commission must provide itself a broad set of assumptions that will allow it to make a loeical conclusicn that adequate protective measures can and will be taken.Sd/ Nine days later, without having solicited any comments on the Congressmen's new pro-posal or on the presumption ultimately adopted, the Commission promulgated its final 5 rule.$L/ $4/ Letter to Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr. from Congressmen Ralph M. Hall and Charles Pashayan, Jr. (Oct. 20,1987) at 2-3 (emphasis added). p5/ 52 Fed. Reg. 42,078 (1987). The Commissioners discussed the substance of the Congressmen's proposal at their October 22 briefing, which was open to the public. On October 27 and 28, the State of New York and Suffolk County informed the NRC that any NRC consideration of "the radically different actions" proposed by the Congressmen required a new opportunity for public comment. S_e_e. Letters dated October 27 and October 28, 1987 to NRC Commissioners from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. The NRC did not solicit any such comment.
- 3. 'Ibe NRC Cannot Justify Its Weakenino of the Emergency Preparedness Rule On October 29 the NRC stated that the objective of the new rule was "to imple-ment the policy underlying the 1980 Authorization Act,"$/ and "to give effect to" Congressional intent reflected in Section 109 of the 1980 Authorization Act so utilities would not be "penalized" by non participation of state and local governmentsS/ The hiarch 6,1987 notice of proposed rulemaking included no reference whatsoever to the 1980 Authorization Act.6_8_/ Thus, the NRC deprived the public of an opportunity to comment on its stated basis for the rule change.
In announcing its new 1980 Authorization Act rationale in October, the NRC aban-doned the bases announced for the rule when it was first proposed.6.L_/ 9 In hiarch 1987, the Commission sought to justify the rule change on two grounds: concern for the financial status of the utilities it regulates, and a purported change in circumstances. As for the financial concern, the NRC cited the "obvious serious finan-S/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,086. 6.L7/ Id. at 42,079. S_e.e.cenerally discussion at 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,079-82; 42,084. 6,8/ e S_e__e 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,980-84.
- 69. /
Significantly, the Commission has never based the new rule on any post-1980 new scientific studies or data with respect to accident risks, or plant design or operations. 52 i i Fed. Reg, at 6,983. Nonetheless, the new rule plainly would provide a lesser margin of protection for the public's health and safety than the 1980 rule. The Commission itself asserted that "It would seem fairly indisputable that the adequacy of a plan with cooperation will be enhanced relative to a utility-sponsored plan without it." 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,983. Similarly, the NRC Staff's hiemorandum which analyzed and recommended the proposed new rule to the Commission confirms that it would lower the standard of protection provided under the 1980 rule. See hiemorandum to NRC Commissioners from William C. Parler, General Counsel and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-35 (Feb. 6,1987) at Attachment B "Regulatory Analysis * ("the adoption of the proposed amendments may result in a less coordinated offsite emergency plan as compared to sites where full coordination has been achiever) and Attachment C "Environmental Assessment" ("the public in the vicinity of the few affected plants would be placed at a somewhat greater risk relative to what would be the case if either the governments cooperated or the NRC adhered to its current emergency planning rules."). See also_ Commissioner Asselstine's dissent, discussed at page 27. t
cial consequences to the utility, ratepayers and taxpayers" when a nuclear power plant is abandonedl9/ It admitted, however, that the "difficult question is whether or to what extent these non-safety consequences should be a matter of concern to the Commission in setting pre-licensing emergency planning requirements.*3/ In adopting the final version of its new rule, the NRC abandoned this financial rationale with the terse asser-tion that "the NRC's motivation in promulgating this rule is not economics."3/ The Commission had also justified the proposed new rule by claiming a "charge in circumstances," "experienced since the regulations were promulgated in 1980, i.e.. the phenomenon, not then expected, of State and local governments, refusing to cooperate in emergency planning."E/ In its March rule proposal, the Commission ignored that in 1980 and subsequently, be.,th Congress and the Commission itself had acknowledged that some state and local governments might decline to adopt emergency plans; that this could prevent the licensing or operation of a nuclear plant; and that this would, in effect, constitute a state or local "veto" of a plant. In adopting the final rule, the Commission abandoned its "change in circumstance" rationale.3/ Notwithstanding the Commission's claims that the 1980 Authorization Act justi-fies its rule change, the new rule violates, rather than implements, the most fundamental element of Congress' 1980 mandate to the NRC: that no plant may be licensed unless l 1 1 2.0/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,981. 3/ IA at 6,982. In fact, in Power Reactor Develooment Co. v. International Union of Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers. 367 U.S. 396, 415 (1961), the Commission itself assured the Supreme Court that it "is absolutely denied any authority to consider fthe utility's financial investment) when acting upon an application for a license for operation." (Emphasis added.) 1 I 3/ 52 Fed. Reg, at 42,083. 3/ Id at 6,983. 3/ See 1d at 42,080. F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ ___,____________._m
there is a state, local or utility plan that can and will be implemented to assure the public health and safety. Commissioner Asselstine dissented from the Commission's decision to propose the new rule, and filed a point-by point refutation of the Commission's rationale.21/ With respect to the underlying philosophy, he stated that the proposal "is nothing more than the Commission's pre-1980 philosophy in new trappings."ll/ With respect to the level of safety, he observed that the proposed rule "accept [s] a level of protection of the public health and safety which is lower than that afforded by the Commission's current regulations."2.1/ He explained as follows: An ad hoc response by the responsible government officials is simply inconsistent with the fundamental precepts of emergency planning and clearly cannot provide the same level of protection as a plan with full cooperation would. An ad hoc response means that there will be no preplanning by the governments. Officials will be forced either to improvise during an accident (something which we know did not work at TMI) or to attempt to carry out a plan with which they are not familiar.1/8 H.
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT The NRC has a heavy borden in justifying its rulemaking action. There is no basis for deferring to agency discretion in this case because the NRC has no expertise to justify the creation of its far-reaching presumption. The State and local governments, not the NRC, are the experts on what they will do in an emergency. Even among federal agencies, FEMA, not the NRC, has principal responsibility for emergency planning around ]5/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,984-87. ]6/ Ld. at 6,986. 2.1/ M. at 6,984. 2.8/ M. at 6,986.
nuclear plants. FEhfA has stated that the NRC's presumption has no basis in fact or in FEh!A's experience. The NRC's adoption of the new rule was arbitrary and capricious for three rea-sons. First, there is no record support -- much less substantial evidence - for the pre-sumption that State and local governments will follow a utility's plan in an actual emer-gency. The NRC's assertion that governments believe a planned response is better than an a_d_ hoc response does not logically or factually support its conclusion that state and local governments will follow a utility's plan. Second, the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious because the NRC's explana-tion for the new rule - that it implements the Congressional intent reflected in the 1980 NRC Authorization Act - is demonstrably false. A rule that authorizes a license to be issued without even permitting the governments to demonstrate that they will not follow the utility's plan does violence to the Congressional intent. The NRC's other justi-fications for the new rule -- imo the alleged unfairness to utilities when state and local governments decline to participate in emergency planning and the alleged failure of the NRC to anticipate that some state and local governments would not participate in emer-gency planning - are inadequate as a matter of law and were abandoned by the NRC between the time it proposed and the time it adopted the rule. Third, the rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious because the NRC's rule is internally inconsistent. Section 50.47(a) of the NRC's emergency planning rule requires a finding of reasonable assurance that an adequate plan can and will be implemented. The Commission's new rule, however, effectively eliminates that requirement by barring inquiry into the potentially dispositive factual issue of whether a utility's plan will be implemented in an emergency. In adopting the new emergency planning rule the NRC also violated the notice and comment requirements of the APA. The most important element of the new rule - the
presumption about what governments would do in response to an emergency - was not contained in the proposal that was noticed for comment. State and local governments charged with responsibility for protecting persons living around nuclear power plants, and the public that would be at risk in a nuclear accident, are entitled to comment on such a fundamental and controversial change in the NRC's emergency planning regulations. III. ARGUMENT A. Standards of Review
- 1. *Be Arbitrary and Capricious Standarti Agency actions must be set aside if they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.".7__9/
As this Court recently stated, in determining whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious "courts will look to see whether the agency has adequately explained the facts and policies upon which it relied. Reviewing courts also require that the facts relied upon have some supporting basis in the administrative record. 80_/ In other words, NRC rulemaking "accompanied by an inadequate explanation constitutes arbitrary and capricious conduct."8l./ Further, the _ NRC "remains obliged to produce substantial evidence for its major assumptions in a rulemaking. . . . 8_2/ 1.9/ Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 4 706. 3_.0/ Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. EPA. 324 F.2d 1258,1267 (1st Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). 8.3/ Federal Election Commission v. Rose. 806 F.2d 1081,1088 (D.C. Cir.1986). See City of Brookings Municipal Telephone Co. v. FCC 822 F.2d 1153,1165 (D.C. Cir.1987); North Germany Area Council v. FLR A. 805 F.2d 1044,1050 (D.C. Cir.1986); Celcom Communications Coro, v. FCC. 789 F.2d 67, 70-71 (D.C. Cir.1986). 82/ NRDC v. Herrington. 768 F.2d 1355,1359 Maritime Ass'n v. United State _s (D.C. Cir.1985). Accord American Industries. Inc. v. EPA. 759 F.2d 905, 921 (D.C. Cir.766 F.2d 545, 566 n.30 (D.C. Cir.1985); Eag 1983); Telocator Network of (footnote continued)
2. Courts Owe No Deference to the NRC When It Acts Outside Its Field of Expertise In applying the arbitrary and capricious standard, courts give considerable defer-ence to agencies, including the NRC, when they act within the scope of their exper-tised3/ This Court, however, must take a particularly critical look at the NRC's new emergency planning rule for two reasons. First, it is hornbook law that when an agency acts outside its field of expertise, it is not entitled to deference $4/ The NRC's expertise is in matters of nuclear safety and nuclear plant design and operation, not offsite emergency response or preparedness. Congress and the NRC have long acknowledged that state and local authorities, not the federal government, have the knowledge, experience and know-how, and are the true (footnote continued from previous page) America v FCC. 691 F.2d 525, 545 (D r - 334-35 (D.C. Cir.1981).
"' .1982); Sierra Club v. Costle. 657 F.2d 298, 83/
Nonetheless, even when age. # , act within their expertise, careful review is required. As the Supreme Court has stated, unless "courts make the requirements for administrative action strict and demanding, expertise, the strength of modern gov-ernment, can become a monster which rules with no practical limits on its discre"on." hiotor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm hiutual Automobile Ins. Co. 463 U.S. 29, u -49 (1983) (emphasis in original), (quoting New York v. United States, 342 U.S. 882, 384 (1951) 156, 167(Douglas, (1962). J., dissenting)); Burlington Truck Lines. Inc. v. United States. 371 U.S. 84/ NLRB v. Bildisco and Bildisco. 465 U.S. 513, 529 n.9 (1984) (rejecting as "novel" the contention that a court should defer to an agency's interpretation of statutes outside its expertise); Russell v. Law Enforcement Assistance Admin. 637 F.2d 1255,1264 (9th Cir.1980) ("[D]eference is not appropriate when the particular interpretation is outside the agency's expertise *); Local 777. Democratic Union Organizine Comm. v. NLRB. 603 F.2d 862, 869 n.17 (D.C. Cir.1978) ("(W]here the issues involved are purely legal or otherwise outside the Board's particular expertise, the Board's interpretation is entitled to no particular deference"); Amchem Products. Inc. v. G AF Corp. 594 F.2d 470, 476 (5th Cir.), modified. 602 F.2d 724 (1979)(Traditional policy of deference to agency action "is inapplicable where the rnatter is not within the expertise of the agency"). See also FCC v. RCA Communications. 346 U.S. 86, 91 (1953) (holding that where FCC based its decision on its interpretation of national policy rather than on matters within its own special cornpetence, the Court would not defer to the agency's decision).
"experts" on local emergency response issues.E/ Even at the federal level, it is FEhfA, not the NRC, that has the primary responsibility and experience with respect to offsite ernergency planning and response.5/ As discussed below, FEhf A does not have any data that support the NRC's presumption.
hfore importantly, the presumption at issue in the new rule does not really address, or call for expertise concerning, technical matters of emergency pla: ming; rather, it makes hypotheses, predictions, and assumptions about what state and local government officials would do in an emergency in the absence of any government olan or preparedness. The NRC has no expertise on that subject, and the expertise it does have provides no basis for predicting or presuming how sovereign governmental officials would or could choose to act in an emergency.82/ Second, when an agency changes a settled rule, the burden is on the agency to justify the change.M/ Here, the NRC has fundamentally altered the emergency planning requirements that have been in place since 1980. The Commission has a heavy burden of M/ See, eau Emergency Planning Around U.S. Nuclear Powerplants: Nuclear RegAu tory Commission Oversicht Hearinzs Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Gov-- ernment Operations of the House of Representatives 96th Cong.,1st Sess. 380, 535 (1979)(testimony of NRC Chairman Hendrie); 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9471-78 (1979); Citizens for an Orderly Enerav Policy v. Suffolk County. 604 F. Supp.1084,1095 (E.D.N.Y.1985).
$/ On December 7,1979 the President, in response to the recommendations of the Kemeny Commission, directed that FEh!A assume lead responsibility for all offsite radiological emergency planning and response. FEhf A's responsibilities are set forth at 44 CFR $ 350.
S_ee_ also "hiemorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency hianagement Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission," 45 Fed. Reg. 82,713 (1980). superseded at 50 Fed. Reg. 15,485 (1985). 8.1/ See Guard v. NRC. 753 F.2d 1144,1149-50 (D.C. Cir.1985) (not within NRC's core of expertise to make assumptions about whether adequate facilities will be available to serve radiation victims in event of accident). 8_8/ hiotor Vehicle hifts. Ass'n v. State Farm hiutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 41 (1983). Sm Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Rv. Co. v. Wichita Bd. of Trade. 412 U.S. 300, 807-08 (1973); Dalton v. United States. 316 F.2d 971, 974 (4th Cir.1987); Center for. Science in the Public Interest v. Deot of Treasury. 797 F.2d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir.1986); NRDC v. EPA,790 F.2d 289, 298 (3d Cir.1986); Robbins v. Rezan. 780 F.2d 37,49 (D.C. Cir.1985); St. James Hoso, v. Heckler. 760 F.2d 1460,1472 (7th Cir.1985); Center for Auto Safety v. Peck. 751 F.2d 1336,1349 (D.C. Cir.1985).
1 justifying why it is now appropriate to eliminate safety requirements previously considered essential to protecting the health and safety of persens living near nuclear - power plants. B. %e NRC's Rulemaking Was Arbitrary and Capricious The new rule is arbitrary and capricious because the administrative record does not support it, the NRC's explanation for the rule is demonstrably false and inadequate, and the rule is internally inconsistent.
- 1. ne Administrative Record Does Not Support the New Rule The NRC's only attempt to provide a basis for its presumption is the following assertion in the release announcing the new rule:
This rule leaves it to the Licensing Board to judge what form the "best efforts" of state and local officials would take. However, the rulemaking record strongly supports the proposition that state and local governments believe that a planned response is preferable to an a_si_ hoe one. Therefore, it is only reasonable to suppose that in the event of a radiological emergency, state and local officials, in the absence of a state or local radiological emergency plan approved by state and local governments, will either look to the utility and its plan for guidance or will follow some other plan that exists. Thus the presiding Licensing Board may presume that state and local governmental authorities will look to the utility for guidance and generally follow its plan in an actual emergency; however, this presumption may be re-butted by, for example, a good faith and a timely proffer of an adequate and feasible state or local radiological response plan which would in fact be relied upon in an emergency.8_2/ The administrative record does not support the Commission's presumption for five reasons. First, as a matter of logic, it does not follow that because state and local government officials may subscribe to the truism that a planned response is better than an a_d_. hoc _ one, they would decide in an emergency to follow a plan prepared by a utility, 81/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. which the government officials have not reviewed, adopted, or been trained or prepared to implement. Second, the NRC does not have the expertise to predict what state and local governments will do in an emergency. Thus, its presumption that state and local gov-ernments will follow a utility's plan that they have stated they will not follow is not entitled to any weight. Guard v. NRC. 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985) is directly on point. In Guard petitioners challenged the NRC's decision that emergency planning requirements on the treatment of persons exposed to dangerous levels of radiation (10 CFR % 50.47(b)(12)) could be satisfied merely by identifying treatment facilities in '.he area. In vacating the NRC's decision as inconsistent with the Commission's own emer-gency planning requirements, the Court stated: The underlying assumption made by the Commission - that wherever present or future nuclear power plants may be located, adequate facilities will be available in the area to serve victitus of radiation exposure in :he event of an accident - is hardly within the core of the Commission's expertise. In any case, it is not an assumption ness regulation.M/ properly indulged in an emergency prepared-Here too, the Commission's underlying assumption - that state and local governments will follow a utility's plan, no matter how firmly they may declare that they will not follow that plan - is beyond the Commission's expertise. Third, contrary to the NRC's assertion that "the rulemaking record strongly supports" the presumption, that record cannot even be fairly characterized as addressing the presumption. Since the Commission chose not to give advance notice of its intention to include the presumption in the new rule (s_ee Section III.C below), commenters had no basis or reason for commenting upon the presumption's validity or lack thereof.9_l/ 9.2/ 753 F.2d at 1149-50. 91/ Moreover, as late as October 22, even the NRC's Staff understood the proposed (footnote continued)
Fourth, FEhfA - the agency relied upon by the NRC for its expertise in offsite emergency response matters - informed the NRC prior to the adoption of the new rule that there is no basis in fact or in FEMA's experience to permit predictions on whether state and local g vernments will follow a utility plan in an emergency: The belief expressed by the NRC that State and local govern-ments which have not been involved in emergency planning would nonetheless respond to an actual emergency and follow a comprehensive utility plan is open to question. FEhfA has no data that would indicate what State and local government reactions might be in such circumstances.14/ In adopting the final rule, the NRC itself acknowledged "FEMA's declared reluctance to make judgments on emergency planning in cases of state and local non participation . . . because of the degree of conjecture that would in FEhf A's view be called for . . . 93/ Fif th, prior to adoption of the new rule, there was only one case that had advanced to the stage where evidence was available on the question of whether state and local governments would use a utility's plan. In that case, the Commission's own Licensing Board had found that there was no factual basis to conclude that state and local governments would carry out a utility's plan. Specifically, in the Shoreham licensing proceeding, the utility, LILCO, had argued since 1983 that the State of New (footnote continued from previous page) rule as containing no_ presumption about what governments would do in a "best efforts" response. See Section LB above. 92/ Comment letter to Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, NRC, from Dave hicLoughlin, FEhfA Deputy Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support (Apr. 28, 1987) at 4 (emphasis added). In addition, in response to an NRC request that FEh1A adopt, among others, the presumption that non-participating governments would "fdlow the utility plan" in evaluating utility plans for NRC licensing purposes, FEhfA stated that since the presumption "originate [d] with the NRC," and is not "based on . . . specific verified any legal facts," FEhiA or public would not defend the presumption in any court proceedings or in forum. Letter to Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, NRC, from David hicLoughlin, FEhf A (Oct. 28, 1987). 93/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. In its final rule the NRC does not explain why it is in a better position than FEhfA to reach conclusive findings on matters which FEh1A has found open to question.
York and Suffolk County would, in a real emergency, implement the utility's plan for an offsite response to a Shoreham accident. The State and County, however, had provided detailed reasons and evidence, citing local conditions and realities with which they are intimately familiar, to support their belief that the utility's plan was inadequate, unworkable, and misguided in many respects. They also had submitted sworn affidavits of Governor Cuomo, the Suffolk County Executive, and other State and County officials, detailing why the Governments would not and could not follow, use, or act in accordance with that utility plan. In rejecting the utility's argument that in a real emergency the State and County would respond in a way consistent with the utility's proposed plan, the Licensing Board stated: On the basis of the probative evidence of record, it is clear that any government response that can be anticipated will be on an uncooperative, uncoordinated, a_d_ hoc basis considering the State's and County's opposition to the LILCO Plan and their deliberate unwillingness to participate in it. ... There is nothing on which to base a finding that there will be a coopera-tive, coordinated effort between the government and the utility to prepare for and implement the existing emergency response plan. The State and County affirmatively oppose participating in the LILCO Plan. We cannot base a iudement on the adecuacy of the Plan on coniecture. as Ithe utilitvl would have us do.ll/ 94/ Long Island NRC 644,912 (1985).Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-85-12,21 The NRC Appeal Board affirmed that ruling. Lona Island Lighti_ng Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-818, 22 NRC 651, 675-76 (1985). The Comraission reversed, but remanded for hearing on the outstanding questions of fact concerning the nature and adequacy under the NRC's regulations of a "best efforts
- government response. Lone Island Lichting Co._ (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986).
And, more recently, the NRC's Licensing Board held that given the evidentiary record before it in the Shoreham case, it could not assume that the state and local governments would follow the utility's plan: (We} took into account the evidentiary record in which the Governments stated that they would not implement the (utili-ty's] plan, would not respond to a Shoreham emergency in con-cert or in partnership with (the utility], would not rely upon (utility} recommendations or advice, and would not authorize [the utility} to perform (the emergency response police power functions at issue}. Considering the best efforts assumptions and the foregoing led the Board to the conclusion that it re-mained an open question how the Governments would respond in an emergencyl_/ In sum, the NRC has completely failed to satisfy its "oblig[ation] to produce substantial evidence for its major assumptions in a rulemaking."$/ The Commission's presumption is outside its expertise and is not supported by any facts or data, in the record or elsewhere. The NRC's own expert "advisor" on emergency planning, FEMA, has told the NRC that the presumption has no basis. And the only pertinent facts krown to the Commission about how non participating governments would respond in an tetual emergency - those in the evidentiary record in the Shoreham case - directly contraa?ct the presumptiori. For these reasons, the Commission's action in adopting the new rule was arbitrary and capricious.
- 2. The NRC's Explanation of the New Rule Is Inadequate In the release announcing the final rule, the Commission abandoned the bases for 95/
Long Island Lightine Co._ (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-29, No. 50-322-OL-3, slip op. at 14 (Oct. 29,1987) (emphasis added). This Order followed a September 17,1987 Order in the Shoreham proceeding in which the Licensing Board had ruled that there was sufficient "convincing direct evidence" which precluded a finding that the State and local governments would follow the utility's plan. Long Island Lighting, Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-26,26 NRC 201, 216 (1987).
.5/ See cases collected at footnote 82.
1
the rule change announced in its rulemaking proposal.91/ Instead, the NRC relied exclusively on the 1980 Authorization Act Conference Report language that the conferees "sought to avoid penalizing (a license) applicant . . . If a State or locality does not submit an emergency response plan to the NRC.=98/ Relying on this new basis to justify the new rule, the Commission asserted that the final rule "is consistent with" and "give[s} effect to" Congressional intent reflected in the 1980 Authorization Act.99/ Petitioners discuss the legislative history of the 1980 Authorization Act in Section I.A.2 above. This history demonstrates that the NRC's justification does not withstand analysis. 91/ As discussed above, the Commission originally offered two different explanations to support the proposed rule: first, that considerations of economic fairness to the utility justified the rule change, 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,982; and second, that the Commission had not anticipated in 1980 that some state and local governments might not participate in emergency planning. I_d_. at 6,983. It had to abandon both explanations in the final rule. With respect to the fairness / economic argument, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit h9'.d that in setting or enforcing the standard of "adequate protection" the Commission "may not consider the economic costs of safety measures" and instead must determine "regardless of costs, the precautionary measures necessary to provide adequate protection to the public." Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC. 824 F.2d 108,114 (D.C. Cir.1987). See also Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Union of Electric Radio and Machine Workers 367 U.S. 396,415 (1961)(Commission could not consider the applicant's previous capital investment in deciding whether the operation of the plant would satisfy the adequate protection standard); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC. 690 F.2d 1025,1033 (D.C. Cir.1982) (the Commission "does not and cannot consider the utility's (prior) investment in a particular facility" in determining whether "reasonable assurance" exists). With respect to the "unanticipated non participation" argument, the Commission I could not escape the fact that the Commission's own release adopting the 1980 emer-gency planning rules explicitly "recognize [d] there is a possibility that the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule through inaction of State and local governments or an inability to comply with these rules." 45 Fed. Reg. at 55,404. 98/ 52 Fed. Reg. 42,079. Petitioners note that the 1980 Authorization Act was not so much as mentioned, much less relied upon, when the NRC announced the proposed rule on March 6,1987. 99/ See discussion at 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,079481.
Following TMI, Congress insisted that nuclear plants not be licensed to operate absent site-specific factual findings that adequate preparedness and implementable plans exist to protect the public. Congress firmly rejected the et stinued reliance upon well-intentioned but a_d_ hoc emergency responses by requiring that any plan relied on for licensing - be it a State, local or utility plan - meet the implernentability standard of "reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can and will be protected.a100/ Moreover, as shown by the debate on and defeat of the Johnston amendment, the Conference resolution of the conflicting House and Senate bills, and the NRC's own contemporaneous discussion of the ;sotential state "veto" issue, Congress acted with full knowledge that some states and local governments mi 8 ht decline to participate in emergency planning and that their non participation could prevent a plant from being licensed to operate.101/ It recognized that emergency planning is primarily a matter of state and local government responsibility and expertise, that practical considerations and the most basic principles of federalism argue against any attempt to compel state and local governments to submit emergency plans, and that while the NRC should be able to consider a utility's plan, there is no assurance that a utility plan alone can meet safety requirements. Contrary to the NRC's claimed reliance on the 1980 legislative history, the new emergency planning rule is light years away from the Congressional intent reflected in that history. Under the new rule, the critical requirement of an adequate detailed plan 100/ See Section I.A.2 above. 101/ As stated by Judge Altimari, "Congress was well aware of the possibility that local governments might refuse to cooperate in furnishing (an emergency plan}" and nevertheless "did not ... adopt an amendment to require local government participation." Citi: ens for an Orderly Enerev Policy v. Suffolk County. 604 F. Supp. 1084,1095 (E.D.N.Y.1985). Presumably, Congress was motivated "at least partly by a reluctance to create 'a fundamental shif t in the federal system . . . (that] would give some authority to the Federal Government which has never before been obtained by the Federal Government in this area.'" Id_. (quoting 125 Cong. Rec. S. 9476 daily ed.) July 16,1979).
that can and will be implemented is deemed satisfied by an a_si_ hoc hypothesized response by governments which have not prepared, adopted, endorsed, or agreed to implement a plan. With respect to the "presumed" government response, the new rule further eliminates the Congressionally required assurance of response implementability, by dropping entirely the requirement of pre-licensing exercises and drills that demonstrate knowledge, capabilities and coordination. The NRC's presumption assumes away the fundamental factual issue Congress identified as central to licensing: what will actually be done in an emergency to protect the persons living around a nuclear plant, and will it be adequate? It presumes that state and local governments will do whatever a utility's plan says they will do, even if those governments have rejected that plan as unworkable. It prevents the introduction of evidence to show that the governments will not implement the plan on which the license is to be based. And, the presurnption is effectively irrebuttable by governments that have determined not to adopt or subrnit an emergency plan.102/ Stripped of its rhetoric, the rule in fact seeks to accomplish by presumption that which Congress expressly refused to allow in 1980. Congress refused to allow the NRC to issue a license based on a plan prepared by the NRC for non participatory governments, and it refused to require state and local governments to adopt their own plans for nuclear plants.l.03/ The new rule, however, effects an even more pernicious intrusion on State prerogatives than that contemplated -- but rejected -- by Congress: the NRC would license a plant based on an emergency plan prepared by a utility. The new rule, in effect, attempts to require states to adopt a utility's plan. 102/ See Transcript of Prehearing Conference (Feb. 25, 1988) in Long Island Lighting Co. 19,288.(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 at 19,283, .103/ See Section I.A.2 above.
In sum, the 1980 Authorization Act and the Conference Report do not support the NRC's presumption. There is no evidence that Congress intended that licenses could be issued, or safety findings made, based on the mere existence of a utility's plan and the presumed, hypothesized actions of government officials, to be improvised at the time of an emergency. The self-imposed stricture of the rule - that the NRC will not consider evidence that the governments'will not implernent the plan upon which the license is to be based - flies in the face of Congress' pronouncements in 1980. Because the Commission's explanation for the rule is inadequate, the Court should vacate the rule as arbitrary and capricious.104/
- 3. The New Rule Is Internally Inconsistent The Court must vacate the new rule for a third reason: the rule is internally inconsistent. The best illustration of this principle is found in Guard v. NRC. 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985).
Gua rd involved a challenge to the Commission's decision that 10 CFR
$ 50.47(b)(12), which requires that emergency plans include "[a}rrangements . . . for medical services for contaminated injured individuals," could be satisfied by a simple identification of whatever facilities happen to exist. The D.C. Circuit vacated the NRC's decision on the ground that the decision was inconsistent with the requirement of 9 50.47(b)(12). It held that the Commission's decision to allow medical services to be arranged "entirely a._d_ hoc af ter the onset of an emergency" was fundamentally inconsistent with the 5 50.47(b)(12) requirement that adequate planning exist before an operating license is issued. The Court stated, A provision calling for pre-event arrangements is not sensibly met by post-event prescriptions.
104/ See cases cited at footnote 81. I
It appears, in sum, that the NRC, with one hand, has placed section 50.47(b)'s cover over individuals exposed to dangerous levels of radiation but, with the other hand, has removed the cover.105/ Here, Section 50.47(a)(1) requires as a condition for the issuance of a license that the NRC find "that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency." (Emphasis added.) The Commission states repeatedly in its discussion of the new rule that this requirement remains in full force.106/ At the same time, however, the NRC establishes a presumption that is fundamentally inconsistent with the requirement that there be a 105/ 753 F.2d at 1149,1150. 106/ In its release adopting the final rule the Commission stated: "{the Commission) is on record as believing that the evaluation of a utility plan takes piace in the context of the overriding obligation that no license can be issued unless the emergency plan is found to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protective measure.s in an emergency," 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,080; "the rule provides for no diminution of public protection from what was provided under existing regulations." id. at 42,081; "a utility plan, to pass muster, is required to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in an emergency," id. at 42,082; "the Commission must make both a finding of
' adequate protective measures . . . in an emergency' and an overall safety finding of ' reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered'. . . . The rule does nothing to alter either the requirement that emergency planningI.d_.
finding." must be found adequate or the place of emergency planning in the overall safety at 42,083. Similarly, in the release proposing the rule for adoption, the Commission stated: Any 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 i 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 issued. 52 Fed. Reg. at 6,981.
finding of plan implementability, and it eliminates altogether the exercise requirement which permits the implementability finding to be made. First, the presumption assumes away the facts that could potentially lead to the conclusion that there is no reasonable assurance that a utility's plan will be implemented. The presumption prohibits the submission of evidence on what the governments would do to respond to an emergency unless that response is to implement an adequate and feasible plan which, by definition, would provide the necessary
- reasonable assurance."
Clearly, notwithstanding the NRC's protestations, the presumption provision of the rule makes a mockery of the reasonable o.,surance of implementability finding.107/ Second, the new rule eliminates, for the presumed government responders, the requirement that they participate in pre-licensing exercises.108/ This provision undercuts even further the N RC's lip service to the reasonable assurance of implementability finding. The NRC's regulations require exercises "to evaluate major portions of emergency response capabilities," "to develop and maintain key skills," and "to ensure that emergency organization perscnnel are familiar with their duties.109/ Since non participating government personne, whom the NRC presumes will follow a utility's plan, are not required to participate in exercises, under the new rule the NRC will have no basis to evaluate their capabilities or to find assurance that they can and will implement the utility's plan. 107/ The circular nature of the new rule and its fundamental inconsistency with the reasonable assurance requirement is spelled out in the October 20, 1987 letter from Congressmen Ralph M. Hall and Charles Pashayan, Jr., which led to the adoption of the presumption. See Section I.B. above. The Congressmen advocated the presumption be-cause where state and local governments decline to participate in emergency planning, "it will be difficult to make the finding that adequate protective measures can and will be taken," as required by 10 CFR. % 50.47(a). 108/ 52 Fed. Reg. at 42,086. 109/ 10 CFR $ 50.47(b)(14), Part 50, App. E, 9 IV.E.
.. -__-____=__________.
C. 'Ite NRC's Rulemaking Violated Notice and Comment Recuirements In adopting its new rule, the NRC was required to comply with the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 110/ The notice and comment , requirements are designed to "ensure meaningful public participation in agency proceedings,"Ill/ "allow the agency to benefit from the expertise and input of the parties who file comments . . . and to see to it that the agency maintains a flexible and open-mbded attitude toward its own rules,"Il2/ promote "an essential component of
' fairness to affected parties,'all3/ and "by giving affected parties an opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to a rule, . . . (to) enhance ()
the quality of judicial review.al14/ In this Circuit, the standard for determining whether a new opportunity for com-ment is required when an agency adopts a final rule different from the rule that was proposed, is: whether the comrtenters have had a fair opportunity to present their views on the contents of the final plan. We must be satis-fled, in other words, that given a new op};ortunity to comment, commenters would not have their first occasien to offer new and different criticisms which the Agency might find convincing 115/ 112/ 5 U.S.C. 5 553. The Commission's own Staff had warned that introductioc. of new standards af ter the notice period could require "a new round of proposed rulemaking." Memorandum to NRC Commissioners from William C. Parler, General Counsel and Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, SECY-87-257 (Oct.13,1987) at 5. 111/ BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle. 598 F.2d 637, 642 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied. 444 U.S.1096 (1980). 112/ National Tour Brokers Ass'n. v. United _ States. 591 F.2d 896, 902 (D.C. Cir.1978). 113/ Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA. 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983)(quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Home Health Agencies v. Schweiker. 690 F.2d 932,949 (D.C. Cir.1982)). 114/ I.d_. at 547. 115/ Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. EPA. 824 F.2d 1258,1284 (1st Cir. (footnote continued)
In the Natural Resources Defense Council case, this Court struck down on notice grounds high level waste ("HLW") rules about ground water protection requirements. In language that is directly applicable to this case, the Court stated: It seems significant that the majority of the complaints pre-sented to this court concerning the HLW rules related to the ground water protection requirements. . . . Because the public never saw this provision until the final rule was promulgated, it is not surprising that the petitioners are now raising so many challenges to this provision since this court provides the first and only forum that they have had in which to express their concerns. Had the EPA opened a new comment period when they promulgated this never before proposed or foreshadowed rule, a significant number of the complaints that are before us now could have been resolved by the Agency . . . 116/ Here, the NRC introduced a new and potentially dispositive presumption between the time that comments were solicited and the time that the final rule was adopted. As of October 22, even the NRC Staff still believed that the proposed new rule included no presumption about the nature of a "best efforts" response. Seven days later, however, the NRC fundamentally changed the proposed rule by including the new presumption. Moreover, the eleventh-hour presumption is of fundamental significance: it is potentially decisive in licensing decisions; it strikes at the very heart of the federal-state relationship with respect to emergency planning; it assumes without evidence that sovereign governments will act in emergencies in accordance with utility prescriptions; and, as interpreted by the NRC, it prevents non participating governments from sub-mitting evidence to demonstrate that the governments will not implement the utility's plan. (footnote continued from previous page) 1987) (quoting BASF Wayndotte Coro 598 F.2d at 642). See generally _ New Encland Power Co. v. NRC. 683 F.2d 12 (1st Cir.1982); Kollett v. Harris. 619 F.2d 134 (1st Cir. 1980). 116/ 824 F.2d at 1285-86. 44
In an area as important to the public health and safety as emergency prepared-ness, the governments that are responsible for protecting the population around nuclear power plants and those citizens who would be affected by an accident at such plants, were entitled to an opportunity to comment on the fundamental and controversial rule change embodied in the NRC's final rule. The NRC's failure to include the presumption in a proposal for comment converts the APA's notice requirements into an "empty charade" and transforms "what should be a genuine interchange (into a] mere bureau-cratic sport."Il7/ IV. CONCLUSION The NRC's new rule should be vacated. The rule is outside the Commission's expertise, has no support in the record, is directly contradicted by the very legislative history on which the NRC purports to rely, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the NRC's own requirement of reasonable assurance that an emergency plan "will be" imple-mented. Further, the new rule was adopted without adequate public notice. Though the NRC claims that the rule is faithful to safety requirements that both Congress and the NRC embraced in response to TMI, the very terms and effect of the rule belle that claim. In fact, the new rule is a transparent effort to tilt the scales in favor of licensing a nuclear plant at the expense of public safety. 117/ Connecticut Llaht & Power Co. v. NRC. 677 F.2d 525,530 (D.C. Cir.1982).
Respectfully submitted, e!L LLI lug-,L u h Robert Abrams ' ) Attorney General of the State of New York Alfred L. Nardelli Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, Room 3-118 New York, New York 10271 (212) 341-2334
- { LLt .[ L h yL c,u",k, ,
Fablan G. Palomino # ' Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Two World Trade Center, S7th Floor New York, New York 10047 (212) 587-2118 Attorneys for Petitioners State of New York and Governor hfarlo hf. Cuomo kt i i J u k %~T [CpYj E. Thomas Boyle ,j Suffolk County Attorney Building Building 158 North County Complex Veterans hiemorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
~
- -/ ./
\q' fu Herbert lH. Brown h '
fy1a.*/ , t
/
Karla J. Letsche Jonathan N. Eisenberg Frederick W. Yette KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 778-9000 Attorneys for Petitioner Suffolk County Dated: hfarch 1,1988 _ _ __ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .}}