ML20207T033

Forwards Press Release Re Proposed Additions to Emergency Planning Rules & 870306 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.Rule Establishes Criteria for Evaluation of Emergency Planning for Plants Where States Uninvolved

ML20207T033
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/13/1987
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Breaux J, Sharp P, Udall M HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS
References
FRN-52FR6980, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8703230087
Download: ML20207T033 (13)

Text

3 ut,AEI #dN8ER m., PR S" v.

'o

h

/

UNITED STATES Z

8 '}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hM k [f[

(

g p

C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,

f DOCKETED USNPO f

g, s

'O

'87 MAR 13 A9 54 CHAIRMAN CFFa.

r.~

c C0chE V.

i,;.

The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Reprasentatives Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosing copies of the press Release concerning proposed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemakina which was published in the Federal R,e_gister (52 FR 6980) on March 6, 1987.

The proposed rule would establish criteria for the evaluation of emergency planning for nuclear power plants in those situations in which a state or locality has elected not to participate in the emergency planning process.

The proposed rule provides for a sixty-day period for public comment.

Sincerely, Lando W.

ech,.1r.

Enclosures:

1. Press Release 2.

Federal Register Notice cc:

Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead 8703230087 8703J3 PbR PR

~

50 3LFR478b gg l/l

])2I6 ggg[; l}k 0t a u, M-k W

.)

P.

v "Neg a

[/o UNITED STATES Sd

hSc, g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j

USNRC g

/

ElarCh 13, 1987 g7 pyg j3 gg 34 CHAIRMAN CFFtE CF ".

G00hE'Ui '

Bhl.:.. -

The Honorable Morris K.

Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on. Interior and Insular A# fairs United States House of. Representatives Washington, D.C.

20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosing copies of tSe Press Release concerning proposed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was oublished in the Federal Register (52 FR 6980) on March 6, 1987.

The proposed rule w3uTH establish criteria for the evaluation of emergency planning for nuclear power plants in those situations in which a state or locality has elected not to participate in the emergency planning process.

The proposed rule provides for a sixty-day period for public comment.

Sincerely, O

lando W.

ch,.1r.

Enclnsures:

1. Press Release

2. Federal Register Notice cc:

Rep. Manuel Lu,jan, Jr.

/,pM ug

'o, UNITED STATES

[ " 3.,.

'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SOCMETED

,/

USNRC CHAIRMAN.

March 13, 1987 57 ME 13 9 54 CFFICE ri :...

DOCK [.%ia. :

.: t' BR;.to The Honorable John R. Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosinq copies of the Press Release concerning proosed additions to the emergency plannino rules and the notice of proposed rulenaking which'was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 6980) on March 6, 1987 The proposed rule wouTH establish criteria for the evaluation of energency plarning for nuclear power plants in those situations in which a state or locality has elected not to particioate in the emergency planning process.

The proposed rule provides for a sixty-day period for public comment.

Sincerely, Lando W.

ch, Jr.

Enclosures:

1. Press Ralease

2. Federal Register Notice cc:

Senator Alan K. Simpson

e

1. "*7,

UNITED STATES

/f? Pi i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N W

/.J Office of Public Affairs

'5..','i. ' '.

Washington, D.C. 20555 No.

87-32 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel.

492-7715 (Thursday, February 26, 1987)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS VOTE TO SEEK PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE IN EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE Chairman Lando Zech of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that the Commission has voted to seek public comment on a proposed change in its rule involving offsite planning for emergencies at nuclear power plants.

The vote to publish the proposal for comment was 4-1 with Commissioner James Asselstine dissenting.

The comment period will be for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The proposal from the NRC staff specifically deals with situations where a state or local government chooses not to participate in the emergency planning process.

In his February 24 presentation to the Commission, the NRC General Counsel noted that the proposed rule change would add specific criteria applicable only in the circumstance where a State and/or local government will not participate in offsite emergency planning.

Chairman Zech said in a statement today:

"On February 24, 1987, the Commission heard from a number of Governors and Members of Congress concerning the proposed change 11 the emergency planning rules.

The Commission majority, with Commissioner Asselstine dissenting, has concluded that we should publish the proposed rule for public comment so that we may receive the benefit of the broadest possible spectrum of comment on the proposed rule."

"We note that with very few exceptions the comments we received dealt with the substance of the rule rather than the question of whether we should solicit further public comment on the rule.

We believe that the General Counsel and staff should analyze those substantive comments as part of our review during the public comment period."

4.

e "It is clear to us that the issue raised is one of i

national importance on which there are strongly held views.

We believe the Commission has the authority and obligation to face this controversial issue squarely and in the most responsible manner possible.

It seems to us the best way to do so is to i

publish the proposed rule for a 60-day public comment period."

"In view of the comments received at the February 24th meeting, we believe it is of primary importance to emphasize that, whether this proposed rule is ever enacted or not, public safety -- and not economics -- will always be the Commission's primary consideration in deciding whether to license a nuclear power plant.

If we were to approve the rule, it should be recognized that, if a state or local government refused ts participate in emergency planning, the Commission must still find with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected before issuing a full power license.

We reemphasize that the preferred course is to have state and local participation in emergency planning."

eene Proposed Rules rd-d " * -

Vol. 52, No. 44 Friday, March e, teef i

i True esemen of sw PEDgRaL REGigTER whother powers favor continuation of Deted: March 3, tear t

eeneems nesses to to puhes of the marketing order proyame.%e Kenseek A.Gilise.

pressmed tesuenos et asse ene Secutary would considw terminati of AwistantSecurery/bcMwhtlosand regumeens. ne supm of som noso" the order ifless than two-thirds of e Inspeerlanserviese.

M g,,',"ng, powere of ladian River pai,.f6.P -4 (FR Doc. e7-47e6 Filed S.&er: tes em) meseng prior te se adopean of en snel in the refmodum and powere less enume cose m e.es.a rules.

than two. thirds of the volume such fruit represented in the sof favor continuance. Howe lem S esuCLEAR REGULATORY DEPARTRIENT OF AGRICULTURE evaluting the muits of tinuance C00deflSO4000 Agrieunuralteertedng Swvice versus terminetion, the wGl not only consider the ults of e to CFR Port 50 i

y CFR Port 312 continuance referend but also other i

relevant informati cerning the Lleeneing eHeucteer Pww Mante r

Grapefruit Grown be tieinsgen River operation of the o and the relative mem Stok end/or Leend Distreetin Flerede;0rder Olrosen0 benefits and di antages to producers.

Government DecEne To Ceepwate in i

Referendum se Conducted; handlers, and c umere la order to ONone Emergency Manning Determinauen of Representouve determine w er continued operation Aeescv: Nuclear Regulatory period for Veter Engibigty;and of th order d tend to effectuate the Commision.'

N 'a'a"""a"'"" '"" ' ", " " '

d* ^e.x.ia

- 'a'**d a' -

a er

- on aemeev: Agricultural Marketing Service. Act req e the Secretary to terminate suasesany:De Nuclear Regulatory USDA.

an o whenever the Secutary Ands Commission is considerlag whether to i

acnees Refmndum order; that majority of all growm favor -

amend its rules regarding offsite 1

te ation, and such majority poduced emergency at nuclear power suessaany:*31e document directs that a f market more than 50 puent dthe plaat ettee.

amendmentbeing 1

refereedum be ooeducted among mmodity covered by such order, consided woulsL la limited growere ofIndian River papefruit 4 g,.y. th. Souw Mabuns circumstances, allow the leeuanos of a o

peern la Florida to determine whether fullt. der operetlag lleense even if the j

they favor continuance of the marketing Field OfBee, Fruit and Vepubb l

enbr payam.

Evhka. AMS, USDA Fbdda Cle'u utility cannot meet all of NRC's cuuent Building. P.O. Boa 2xpe Winta Haven.

essergency planalag requirements when, j

saves: Referendum period March 23 Flodda 33ess.-2278, and lacqulyn R.

eestrary to the Commission's j

throd AprG 87.1Agr. ' -

Schlauw. Markdas Ordw expectations when its emergency lP annWm wm Ismd. em h a Pen Puppen Nepenstaftess CENT Administration Branch. Fruit and VepuWe mykka, AMS, USDA lack of cooperation by State and/or Ronald L CiofR. Chief.Marketi Order inie tion Branc F V.

S-Washington DC 20250, are hereby e(nt tion of off i e e n7y te,ephone(,),

dulgnated as referendum agents of the plans.The Commission believes that j

Secretary of Agricultum to conduct such adequate assurance of public health and supptasestraar serenasa Pursuant refmndues. no procedure applicable to safety can be achieved with thle to Order No.913, as ame (7 CFR b referendum shall be b " Procedure

,n g Part 912), and the appli ble provisions for the Coeduct of Referenda in of the Apicultural eting Ayeement Connection with Marketing Orders for oats: Comment period expires May 5.

i j

Act of 1937, as ame (7 U.S.C. 901 Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to 1987.

through gre),it la directed that a g

cultural Marketing Agreement Act[se7 as amended"(7 CFR 900 400 will be considwed if it is practicab referendum be co ucted within the l

period March 23 ush Apru 17.1987 do so, but assurance of consideratica d sqy.

i e

the who, d the can be given only for comments filed on A

. teses through uly 31.

Copies of the texts of the aforesaid or before thle date.

l

}

toes (wi[ riodisherebydetumind amended marke order may be soonasses Submit written commenta I

examined in te o en d es to be a ntative period for the to: Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I

purposes such referendum),were refmndum agents or d the Director.

i Commiselon.We on. DC 20655.

Fruit and Vegetable Division'. U.S. ATIM Docketing Service Branch.

enge in the State of Florida,in the.

Agriculturel Marte Service 1

pad of grepefruit covered by the Deliver cosaments to: Roaan 11:1.1717 H i

sold marketing agreement and Department of Agri tore. Washington-Strut. NW., Washington, DC, between for market in beoh form to DC 202e0.

8:15 a.m. and 5:00 pas, weekdays.

t

}

e sia whether continuance of the Ballots to be cast la the referendum F.xamine comments roosived at: NRC i

amended marketin may be obtained trem the referendum PublicDocument Room,1717 H Strut, i

vored by b yowers.g orderis

. agents and frees thstr appointese.

NW., Weehigienra$'e9.. t l

l

'1%eSeerotaryof Ayloulturehas AvesseyqqqytenlewelMarketing pee punvisen espensaattsee soortacvt i

determalmed that constenance soferende.. Aerenewei Ast of toer,as =" eses.1-Peter GlCresisK ofGe Gomeral

• I are en asseelve sneens for essortaining. te, es se.t. st.as amended 7 UAC. eeMrs Counsel, U.S.

Regulatory l

l L

l> V.;

' Va

=

i Federal Regleter / Val. 52. Nr. 44 / Friday M:rch e 193r / Proposed Rul:s seet Commiselon. Washington, DC 30688 power Station). CIJ-4613,24 NRC 22 has severe non-ealety consequences Telephone:(302)ese-tees.

(lese).De absence of State and local where States and localpwrnnwnts supptsassastasy esponesaftestla governmental cooperation makes it choose not to cooperate, especially after '

August of 1330 the t'a-i==Aa.

more diNicult for utility applicants to a plant has been substantially a

promulpted revloed dens demonstrate complianos with the basic constructed. SipiAcant policy questions,

governing and emerpacy planning standard, especiauy of equity and fairness are presented preparedness at a power plant that part of the standard which requires where a utility has substantiauy sites (see to CFR 80.47 and to CFR part reasonable assuranca that adequate completed construction and comunitted

50. Appendix E).The need for Protective measures "will be taken."

substantial resources to a nuclear plant '

improvements had been demonstrated Die le especially onerous where a and then, after it is far too late I

by the inadequate oNette response to the - utihty is powerless under applicable

. realistically for the utility to reverse accident at the Dree M0e Island plant State or local law to itself implement all course, the State or local government 1

in March of1373. Among other things, aspects of an offsite plan.ne* la opposes the plant by non cooperation in !

t) wee regulations envioloned the actual practice. under the Ceaunisolon's oNsite emergency planning. A forced J

development of offsite emergency plans existing rules State or local governments abandonment of a counpleted nuclear 1

with the cooperation of State and local may possibly veto full-power operation.

plant for which billions for douare have governments in the vicinity of the' even after the plant has been been invested also poses obvious reactor site.

substantiauy completed. by choosing serious financial consequences to the i

The Commisalon's judgment't!Mt'the -

not to cooperate, utility, retepayers and taxpayers.

new requirements were a reasonable As indicated above, when the Pnally, at least la situations where non-i exercise of Comunission authority was Commiselon's emergency planning >

cooperation in oNbite emergency i

premised in part on the Ceaunission's requirements were upgraded in August planning is motivated by safety issues, i belief that State and local sournments of teso, the Commlulon believed that vesting State orlocalgewrnments with j would cooperate in the development all affected Steto and local governmente de facto veto authority over full power L

{

and implementation of offelte plans.

would continue 1o cooperate in operation is taeaamiatent with the.

Hus. In response to comunents that the emergency planning throughout the life fundamental thrust of the Atomic Energy i proposed new emergericy slanning rules of the license.In the rulemaking Act whereby the Commission is given l

would wet State and localgowrnemata initiated by today's notice, the exclusive defure authority to license with defacto veto authority our plant Commission is considering explicitly nuclear power plants and to impose

'a operation. the Coaunission responded what regulatory approach it should..

radiological safety requirements for that "[t]he Commission believn. based follow la the future in the ownt that, their construction and operaties.-

on t)w record created by the public contrary to the expectation in August of

, haecond option under workshops, that Stete and local oNicials 1980 a State or local government + -

considerstion by this rulemaking would i' as partners in this undertaking wiH declines to cooperate in the be an amendmer.t to the Commission's endeavor to provide fully for public development or implementation of em.

emergency planning regulations which protection."

offsite emergency plan for whatever would provide more Sexibility than do i

in the pare since teen, oll'oite,

reason and, as a result, the Co==l==iaa the existing regulations to deal with the emergency plans have been completed may have difficulty finding, as required circumstance of non-cooperation. De and successfuDy exercised at nearly by existing regulations. that there is essence of this option would be a new.

I every nuclear power plant site la the -

reasonable assurance that adequate subsection (e) of 10 CFR 30.47 to read as !

IJnited States. In few cassa, however.

Protective measures can and wdlbe follows:

State or local governments have not taken in the event of a radiological g,y 3, e,,,,,,io,,,, i,,, g,g,,,,,

developed an offsite emergency plan of emergency.

,,,,,,, gi,,,,, go,, g,gi,,

(

their own or cooperated with the utdity Any consideration of possible changes notwithetending een compliance with other in developing one. Die lack of in the Commission's emergency plannin$ requiremente of thle sectice and 10 CFR port cooperation has even occurred after the requirements must recognize one centrol so Appendix :is non compliance oriese l

affected plant was substantially and salient fact: nat such a change eubetennetty hem a lack of participation in l l

constructed.

would not alter the Commission's the development or implementation of offette Existing regulations do not on their paremount obligation to aneure public emeryncy planning by a State er leent face require operation license denial heelth and safety. For each license sonmsunt.and 6f the opplicant l

where State or local governments do not application, the Comedesion would demonstrates to the a--a s

a l

cooperste in emergency ng.

remain obligated to determine that there setlefaction thecitine ese 1 M Rather. they permit the sion to is reasonable assurance that the public could h remedad, er adequately l

lesus an operating license despite health and safety will be adequately compenuted for by senseeable State w local 1 deficiencies la emergency planning.

protected,If the Commission for goversemental cooperation: (21 applicant hee j

provided the defieleecles are "not whatever reason. cannot flad that the mode a seed faith and euetained effort to significant." or that there are " adequate statutory standard has been met, then obtain the cooperet6es of the seesseery o

1 interim compensating actions"(see 10 the license cannot be leeued.

8""""'*; DI *ppheaets oNeue enwgency l d,,

8 *",i"$$'*,"g','g",*g*yr uon which CFR 50.47(c ) and (3)). However, the in particular the Coeunissionis existing tions also provide as a considering two optione.De first option i

are reasonable and achimble undw the basic sta ord in all esses that "no would be to leave the existing i

l opereting license... wul be leaved regulations unchanged.This option circumetencn and which take late accoun 11bely State er local resposee te en actual

=

[for a power reactor] unless a flading is provides one method to assure thet -

,,,,,n,y. and (el appbeset hee provided I

made that there is reasonable assurance offsite onwrgency plans wiu be-copew of the effette plan te all governmente l

that adequate protective measure saa adequate. However, this option depends which would have wherwin parecipated hi l l

and will De takaa.la the event of a on the continued cooperation of State its properoese et lapismenesten and has i

redlologient emergoney."Zass Mand and local governments in emergency essered them that u eteeds ready to -

l 5

Light /rqr Campepy(Shergham 19edent -

planning and _- _ ne opties-esoperete should they cheage their possese, y

i s

8 3

I l

l a.

I f

l 6983 Federal Register / Vol. 52, Nr. 44 / Prid:y, M:rch 6.1987 / Proposed Rules If this option wers adopted, the provisions are not consistent with the plarming and preparedness addressed Commientoa expects that an concept that emergency planning and by this rule requires the Commission to adjudicatory record would need tobe preparedness are as important to safety resolve, for the future, which of the two developed to substantiate a utility's as such engmeered safeguards as underlying emergency planrung claims that the preconditions for reactor containments or emergency core approaches it should fo!!ow: a relatively operation are fulfilled if any laterested cooling systems.ne Commission does inflexible one, that wuI require adequate person or affected State or local not ordinanly permit any axtended planning and preparedness with little or government claima, with reasonable grace perted for a large power reactor to no concern for fairnem or ooet; or a specificity and basis, that they are not operate without these safeguarda,or more flexible osa that focuses on what fulfilled. Moreover, the Co== halos allow a plant to operate for a signi0 cant kind of accident mitigation (dou emphasiaea that it would tot be possible period without these safeguards becausa reduction to tha public in the event of an under this opuon to license e plant far of " harsh economic and social accident) can be reasonably and.

full power operation unless the consequences." Rather, these provisions leasibly aocomplished considering a.7of applicant dersonstrates that adequate reflect a different concept-that the circumstances.lf sound safety offsite emergency plannlag is achievable adequate emergency planning and regulation requires the former, then no and au other aspects of the foregoing preparedness are needed and important. rule change is warranted. If the latter.

criteria are seriaBed.nis rulamaking is but that they sepresent an additional then a change would be in order for.if intended ordy to address non-level of public protection that comes the fundamental philosophy or approach cooperation by reeponsable State or into play only after all of the other of emargency planningle reasonable local govemments; u does not provide a safety requinrnents for proper plant and achievable dose reduction, this may remedy or excuse for other offsite design. quahty construction, and careful. f properly be understood in the sense of ernergency planning pmblema.,,

disciplined operation have been

. what is reasonable and feasible far the ne additional Sexibility provided by considered. and that therefore some utility to accomplish under allof the such a rule wonid obviously =t==ha regulatory Cexibility is warranted and circumstances, tncluding matters which the consequences frams the lack of the costs associated with alternative -

are completely beyond,the utility's -"*

governmental cooperation in the approaches may be taken into account.

controle '- '+ ; V;"WW -

development or implemention of offsite De second more flexible emergency. *. In the one licens case to date'in emergency plans. The more important planning concept or approach ts also -

which thla matter of le amargency-and difficult question is whether or to reflected in consistent and repeated -

planning philosophy'or approach has i

what extent these non-sefety Commission pronouncement that the been considered the (%mmission has consequences should be a matter of fundamental philosophy or approach of taken the view that under the existing concern to the Commission in setting emergency planning is to assure regulations an adequate plan must pre-licensing emergency plannmg reasonable and achievable dose achieve dose reductions in the event of requirements.

reduction should an accident occur.Eg.,

an accident that are generally The Commission believes that the LongIslandlehting Company comparable with what might be 1980 rule and the Commission's (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),

accomplished with governmental explanation of the basis and purpoee for supro:Southem California Edison cooperation. lang IslandLighting the 1980 rule in the rule preamble (45 FR Company (San Onofre), CLI-83-10,17 Company, supro. Bat, as the above 55402. August 19,1980) reDect NRC 528.M3 (198). De existing discussion makes clear, another inconsaatent concepts as to the proper emergency plannmg regulations does regulatory approach is possible which is place of offsite emergency planning and not require that plans echieve any pre.

set out with option 2. and which focuses non safety costs in the NRC safety established minimum dose savmas in on what is prudent and achievable dose licensing program. On the one hand, the the event of an accident. For example, reduction taking into account lack of Commission stated that the new approved emergency plans with fuu governmentalcooperation. As noted requirements, as weD as proper sitting State and local governmental earDer, the standards in our existing and engineered safety features, were cooperation have highly vanable regulations contemplated gosernmental needed to protect public health and evacuation time estamates rangma frorn cooperation in o!Isite emergency safety. Taken in isolation, these several hours to over ten hours and the plarming and preparedness.

statements can be read as evidencing a projected dose savmas for such plans The types of measures. in addition to Commission decision that emergency would vary widely.Thus the regulataan those normauy provided by the licensee.

e planning and preparedness as provided is inherently variable in effect and there to cornpensate for the lack of in those revised rules were to be treated are no bnght-line, mandatory mirutnam cooperation in planning by State and j'

as measures essential to safe operations projected dose savings oc evacuation localgosernments would include:

of nuclear facilities and therefore to be ume limites which could be viewed as (1) Added plans and procedures imposed rigorously without regard to performance standards for emergency detailing compensating measures; l

equity or cost.

plans in the e.isting regulation.

(2) Added per:onnel to accompany On the other hand, the Commission Moreover, the doee savmss achieved by and advise Stata and local officula m en rejected an option in the rulemaking that implementation of an emergency plan actual emergency.

could have lead to automatic plant under adverse cx>ndstrons, es, during or (3) Facilities and equipment including shutdown if adequate plans were not foUowing heavy snow, could be vehiclee, radios, telephone and todiation filed because of commenters* concerns substantially less than under perfect monitors as required by the plan; about " unnecessarily harsh economic conditions.nia enriability is consistent (4) Special training for personnel and social consequences to State and with a concept ar approach to implementmg compensatmg measures, local govamments, utilities, and the emergency planning and preparednees (5) Arrangementsincludmg formalised public." Operating plants ware given that is flexible rather than rtsidL agreements and contracte for supportmg very substantial greca periods to come In the Comenlee6ce's view, the narrow servicest L..e

,.i -

f into compliance before shaldown would circumstance of non-cooperetten by a.

[6J Cipet pommnniranaa seith.. -

State or nooal govemment m emeresswye members of the public in the smargency '

be considered oe ordered.These

.m.

l l

4 l

A 0

Federal Register / V:1. 52. Nr. 44 / Friday, March 6,1987 / Proposed Rules 6983 p'anning zone (EPZ) to keep them represent would have much to gain and to amend Section F of to Cnt Part 50.

informed of the status and provisions for nothing to lose from coeperation.

Appendix E. which currently requires response:

Second. the Commission believes that that the offsite plan be fully exercised (7) Providing periodic notification of State and local governments which have binennially.

State and local government personnel of not cooperated in planning will carry The pendency of this proposalis not the details of the compensatory out their traditional public health and intended to affect any ongoing reviews m.asures included in the plan the safety roles and would therefore or hearings of emergency plantdng arrangements included for their respond to an accident. It is reasonable issues under existing regulauons, involvement in the event of a real to expect that this response would including 10 CFR 50.11 emergency, and the availability of follow a comprehensive utility plan.

De Commission is currently pursuing training: and nird. the likelihood that State and the feasibility of additional changes to (8) Offsite exercises that demonstrate local governments would cooperate may emergency planning requirements based j

implementation of the plan of the extent be bolstered by Title 111 of the Superfund ' on the source term and severe accident feasible.

Amendments and Resuthorisation Act programs. He proposal made in this

' Comments are requested on these of 1988, which requires States to nouce is not based on either of these alternative approaches to emergency establish State emergency response programs.

planning.%e rule changes in option 2 cornmissions.%e planning and are not dependent in any way on new notification requirementa enacted in that Backfit Anal sie I

information about nuclear plant Act are based on the same philosophy nfs amendment does not impose any accident sourm terms, probabilistic risk adopted by the Commission in its own new requirements on production or assessments, or scient fic studies of the emergency planning regulations. la fact, utilization facilities:it caly provides an j

risk reduction potential of emergency EPA's Chemical Emergency alternative method to meet the.

planning.8 De option would be based Preparedness Program is compatible in Commission's emergency planning on the constJeration of what should be many respects with the Commission's regulations. no amendment therefore is the appropdate underlying philosophy emergency response. program, and EPA's not a backfit under to CPR Satos and a or approach to emergency planning as a Interim Guidance issued in November backfit analysis is not required.

prelicensing regulatory requirement--e 1965 (revision 1) specifically crosa.

consideration which is prompted by the references Commission and FEMA FaPerwoek Reduction Ai:t Statement change in circumstances which have been expertenced since the regulations.

guidance on radiological emergency his proposed rule amende responn. (It should be noted, however, information collection requirements that were promulgated in 1980,i.e., the

. that the Superfund amendments do not are subject to the Paperwork Reduction phenornenon, not then expected, of State require that industrial facilides cease Act of 1900 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et see ). nis and localgovernments, refusing to operation if a State refuses to establish rule is being submitted to the Office of cooperate in emerjency planning.

the required State organization.) Since Management and Budget for review and ne practical suects of Commission the Superfund amendments require approval of the paperwork

~

adoption of option two-a rule change-States to establish emergency response requirements.

are difficult to estimate, but the organizations, a change is posture Commission believes that the level of regarding cooperation in emergency Regulatory Mexibility Certification public protection associated with option planning for nuclear power planta may In accordance with the Regulatory two would not be significantly different entail only small additional Mex2bility Act of igen g U.S.C. 005(b).

I from that provided by the current commitments of government resources.

the Commission certifies that this rule regulations.Pitet. if a plant began Moreover, since it wdl have been wtll not have a sigrdficant economic operation under the circumstances estab!!shed that adequate planning is impact upon a substantial number of permitted by the proposed regulation achievable, and a utility plan will have small entitles. The proposed rule applies change, and all administrative and been required which willinclude only to nuclear power plant licensees judicial remedies available to plant provisions for possible State and local which are electnc utility companies opponents have been exhausted,it cooperation in the event of an accident, dominant in their service areas. nese seems reasonable to expect that the any interim period after commencement licensees are not "small entities as set governments involved more likely than of plant operation during which non.

forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act not would change their position and cooperating governments may re.

and do not meet the small business size cooperate in plantdng.no governments evaluate their position may be short, standards set forth in Small Business or othere may dispute whether planning De time period is, moreover. largely Administration regulations in 13 CFR is adequate.but it would seem fairly under the control of the govemments.

Part 121.

Indisputable that the adequacy of a plan Not only may the governments with cooperation will be enhanced accelerate their efforts to develop an Ust of Subjectsin to CFR Fort so relative to a utility. sponsored plan improved plan once the plant is Antitrust. Classified Information. Fire without it. In these circumstances, the licensed. but should the option g rule protection, incorporation by reference, governmenta and the citizens they change be adopted by the Commission.

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear it may be reascoable for State or local power plants and reactors. Penalty.

8 If ha the future euclent pleet desyne e,e governments which oppose plant Radiation protection. Reactor siting proposed = ben ease resta preintes of the operation to develop adequate criteria. Reporting and recordkeeping petits hesith and utery thee de cumes oness.

contingent emergency plans that wos!3 requirements.

[*"jddl,$"d* '"$*M,", *',be e only come into play should the plant be g.

p s h, consuleretion of the reduced evered nah ie the licensed over their objection, Environmental Aesessment and nnding puu c. la ihas rWemebesL he=ever. no eu,tiene Since an offsite plan developed of No Sig.nficant EnvironmentalImpact m anameror beime made needes p=ata' without State or local cooperation is not no Commission has determined Od d**'M,$"h*",,,"w","j,,,,

likely to be fully exercised,it le under the National Enytronmental Policy n

i4 necessary in conjunction with option g Act of1980. as amended, and the l

g V

l a

6984 Federal Register / Vol 52. No. 44 / Friday. March 6.1987 / Proposed Rul^s s

Commission's regulations in Subpart A are issued under sec. totb es Stat. sea, as For the Ncjest Regulatory Comnunion.

of to CFR Part St. that this rule is not a amended (42 USC 220t(b)k Il Sato (b) and sensumi3.che, major Federal action significantly (c) and Sas4 are issued under uc.1stL as s,c,,,,,y,f,3, commission.

affecting the quality of the human Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S C 2201(l)k and environment and therefore an il 50 47(e). So.55(e]. 50.50(b). 5010,50.71.

Separate Vlews of Commisaloner environmentalimpact statement is not

$a72. Sa73, and Soft are issued under sec.

Assa!stine required. De Commission has prepared, teto, se Stat 950, as amended (42 Uit Emergency planning la essential to in support of this finding. an atto4 protect public health and safety. and the environmental assessment which is

2. Section 50.47 la amended by adding active participation of state and local available for inspection and copytng. for a new paragraph (e) to read sa follows:

gmrnments to the planning procese is a fee, at the NRC Public Document fundamental to adequate emergency Room.1717 H Street NW., Washington.

I50.47 Emergencyplans.

planning. nose am the lessons we DC.

learned from the nme Mile Island Regulataey Analysis (e) The Commission unay issue a fuD accident, and this la the reason the ne Commission hae ared a power operating license for a facihty Commission promulgated its emergency anning rules in 19eo. However, these fessons seem to have been forgotten regulatory analysis for is regulation.

notw thatanding non-compliance with Dis anal sis further examines the costs other requirements of this section and to the present Commission. In proposing and bene ts of the proposed action aN

• CFR Part 50. Appendix E ilnon, compliance arises substantial this mle change.b Conuniasion takes a the alternatives considered by the '

f ta dev o t

step back in time to 1778 when

. ac Commission. no analysis is available for inspection and copying, for a fee, at p

n of

, emergency planning was relegated to a loc I osition of secondaryimportance -

the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H, {I*"

8b S

d h appli t femo straNs ecause it was thoushuo be unhkely to Stud NW., WesWm. DC.

e Foe the reasons set out in the Commission's satisfaction that.

ever be n-ry.The Commission's preamble, and under the authority of th, (1)%e non-compliance could be.

proposal allows licensing of a nuclear Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, remedied, or adequately compensated power plant where there is absolutely -

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, for by reasonable State or local no State or local government as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the governmental cooperation; participation in emergency planning.

ne Comminion thereby undermines Commission is considering whether it (2) Applicant has made a good faith the very foundation upon which should adopt the following amendments and sustained effort to obtain the emergency planning is based. Further, to 10 CFR Part 50:

cooperation of the nece:sary the -Mon substitutes for the e

governments:

PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF requirements of the regulations a "best (3) App (je,ng.s offsite emergency plan efforts" standard of protection. He PROOUCTION AND UTIUZATION includes effective measures to Commission is thus willing to accept a FACluTtES compensate for the lack of cooperation level of protection of the public health 1.ne authority citation for Part 50 which are reasonab's and achievable and safety which ta lower than that continues to read as fo!!ows:

under the circumstances and which take afforded by the Commission's current Authority: Seca, taa Into account a likely State or local regulanons. I cannot support a rule 3 g 3 g,,,,3%,.103,104.105.1st,.182.

response to an actual emergency; and which sanctions such an eroe4on of the g,37,,m g (4) A phcant has provided copies of Commission's emergency planning 954.955.956, as amended. sec. 234. 83 Stat.

P 1264. as amended (42 USC 2132. 2133. 2134.

the offsite plan to all governments which requirements.

2135. 2.2o1, 2232. 2233, 2236, 2239. 2283 seca.

would have otherwise participated in its Nor can I support the Commission's 201, as emended. 202. 206. 8s Stat.12c. as preparation or implementation and has stated justification for this change-that amended. 1344.12s6 (42 U.S C. 5641. 5642-assured them that it stands ready to adhenng to current safety standards for Se on sar also issued under Pub l.95-cooperate should they change their emergency planning might impose I

position.

economic costa on the utilitiee in cases eat, sec. m e2 Stat 2sst (u USC Sa5:L Secuan sato also inseed under seca tot.1as.

3. In AppeedLa E. section F ta in wtuch, absent state and local es Stat am 9n as amended (42 USC 2131.

amended by adding a are paragraph 6 govemrnent participation, the 2235L occ.102. Pub. L 91-19o. 83 Stat 853 (42 to read as follows; Commission is anehle to make the U.S C. 42321 Sections 50 23. Sa25. So 55. 50.56 public health and safety findings g

also issued under sec. tak to Stat. 555 (42 Appendla E.--Emergency Planning ud requeed by our current regulations.

U S C 2235). Sectione 50 33a. 5&55a and Preptrednese for Pmduction and tltilizatlos i

Dese adverse economic consequences Appendix Q also issued under sec.102. Pulx Foolittee L 91 190. 43 Stat a53 (42 U1C 4332).

simply cannot serve as a enlid beals for e

e e

rda the Commisdon's safety F. Training ' ' '

regulations and for abandoning the i

sec, se Stat 12 2

Sections 50.54 Sa91 and Soat also tuued

6. Offsite governmental participanon in M central elements of emergency planning f'

under Pub. L e7-415. es Stat. 3073 (42 USC esercise is not required to the extent an In the face of the experience of nree 2239) Sectico n7s also Issued under sec.

applicant or licensee rolles upon to Cf1t Mile Island and more recently at i

122. ea Stat en (42 USC 2152). Sections 50 47tel. In such cases, an exerclu mth Chernobyl. the Conaussion should be 50 ao through 50.81 steo tee: red under sec.1s4.

particlaption by the applicant or licanan and sesking ways to strengthen our es Stat 964. as amended (42 U S C 22341 other coopersting govemmerttet entatites emergency planmna requirements and to i

Sation 5a1as also luued under sec. toe, es shall be held.

Stat e30. as amended L42 U S C 213sk enhance atate and local government preparedness to cope with a serious 1

^P

[2 U The separata views of Commissionar nuclear accident.Dat is one of the 3a M

Auelstine foDow.

lessone of Chemobyl beingleamed by For the purposes of sec. 223. as Stat, pse, es amended 142 UAC 2 nk 113a20 (sk(b),. March.19er.

Unfortunately, by its action in proposing Dated at Washington. DC this and dey at many European countriaa.

I and (cl. So n 50.n 30.4 sa54. and saso(al j

l e

i M

a Federal Reglater / VII. 52. No. 44 / Friday, March 6,1987 / Proposed Rules 8985 this rule, the Comrnission demonstretes that we in the Unstad States are on the emergency planning. The Comunission

& rule provides for an alternative to opposite couru.

acknowledged that it a proposal to view compliance with NRC requiremente in emergency planning being as equivalent those cases where the inability of the

1. spEnterymyPhaiple to, rather than secondary to, sitmg and utiuty to mut the regulations is Prior to ters the Commission had design in public protection departed concluded that siting of nuclear from the agency's earlier approach to substantially the rault of the failure of plants coupled with the defense power emergency planning. However, the State and local governments to tn-depth th-waion stated:

participate in the emergency planning process.h rule substitutes for e

ect e

! % ctC m commiewa o penpuu,e wu c@ance e b nauladone a %

conYdered probabiliIIof an uverdy alumd by me anexpuwd seguence doWanderd.The Commission may j acddent with offsite conseqeences to be of events that ocaerved at nroe Mlle teland.

license a plant where therele no 1

so low as to make emegency planning ne scendent showed durfy that me partidpation by State and local

--i As a mult, them wee little protecuon provided by siung and enea-ed governments in emergency planning.

planning by sente and local sothorttles safety featume must be bolstered by the De utility must instead submit its own to respond to an inddest at a nucleer abihty to take protecuve muswee dwing b plan for Comminion approval.ne powr plant.

couru of so occident ne accident also utility must have tried to obtain la March of ters there was se ebowed clearly that on sta conditions and accident at the Dree Mile Island plaat acuena, even if by do not couw wf"*""t governmental cooperation. De utility in pennsylvania. There had been httle off-eite radiological consequences wtO affect amt have done thelest it couldin the way various State end local entitsee react devejoping a plan and measures to plaamng by the state and local to protect the public from dangers, realor CoWMH fo ac ofcoopush h governments responsible for deallag knagind sesociated with the accident.'A government authorities given the with the emarrancy, and the response concleWon the comminion diewe frees iW.

circumstances and taking into account was confused.Dere were no le that ha carrying set its statutory mandsk participation of the State and local proceduru for coordination among to proved the public health and sale, ne governments in the case of an actual various governments; bre were no Comnunim must be in a pomuos te emergency. And. the utility must provide ow clear hnes of authority; there were no

• • t etIsle Sovernmental plane have been copies of the plan to responsible c! ear proceduros la ce mans to reviewed and fond adequate.no government entities.

disseminate Information there were no Comminion flads that the public can be protected within the framework of the W Commission states that it believes this rule ch e will not th a

rotacti e a or how ftteNo is signficantly altar the vel of protection en to ergen re se to carry it out once It had been decided upon; and few if any of the other plannmg. (44 FR rstool.

provided to the public for several reasone-(1) Once the rule goes into elements essential to an effecuve hs. the Commission found that efrect, non participating governmenta emergency response existed. Because of emergency planning was essential to are likely to drop their objections and the disarray on the part of nearly Protect the public and that state sad

, begin to cooperate with emergency everyone involved in the response to the local participation in emergency planning because they will not longer 30 accident. People living in die area planning was central to adequate have any incentive to not cooperate.

around the plant did not know what emergency preparedness.

information was accurate and did not (2) State and local governments who know whether ft was safe to stayin the as7 Emergency &nn/ng Rule have n t participated in ptanning will carry out their responsibilities in the area or whether to leave. lbfoot people The NRC's emergency planning rule event of an actual emergency.

simply did whatevn they thought beet.

has been la effect now for almost seven (3) Title IIIof the 1988 Superfund W Commission realized after this years. In general. it has worked we!L Amendments make it more hkaly that experience that improved advance State and local governments, the utilities State an llocal governments wiu planning waa necessary to deal with and the Federal government have su participate.

similar situations in the future. N TMI worked together to develop emerpncy Unfortunately. the Commission's i

accident made it cJest that in the case af plans for most new and operating saaertions are either irrelevant, en emergency with a potential for plants. However, there have been a few insufficient or based simply on wishful sigruficant offsite radiation rejemmee exceptions. The State and local thinking. The Contmission's assertion i

there would be insufficient time during governments responsible for emergency that as a result of this proposed rule the course of an accadent to make plans for two plants in particular have State and local governments will arrangements to protact the people refused to submit emergency plans for suddenly see the light, drop all of their living around the plants.N Commisalon recognized that, even if spyroval oe to participate in utility oblections and begin to cooperate seema planning. Dese governments by to be besed on not mach more than there were no offata mieaus, an nfusing to particapete are making it wishful thinking. The Commission's accident could othet what the state and difficult, if not impossible, for the third argument telles on the Seperfund local governments did in an ettempt to utihties to meet NRC requirements and Amendments which are largely protect their citizens. For this reason, to get licenses to operate their plants.

Irrelevant to the issues here. no mere the Comm!ssion proposed a rule nie state of affairs has proven fact that the States are required to requirina, as a condation ofIlcansing extremely frustrating for the establish emergency planning plants, that there be state and local Commiseton.no State and local commissions to deal with planning for emergency response plans somefeat to government positions in these two cases chemical plants and the Itke has httle meet Commission requirements. (44 FR have etntched out the licensing process 75167).The Commission expressly for planta which the NRC Sta!! feels are relevance to whether a State will give l

recognized that participation in planning otherwise safe to operate.The up its opposition to participating in site-i by state and local authortties and Comadwlon's propoesd rule la an effort ' specific emergency planning for a i

coordinettoe between the govvenments to break the log!am in these two nuclear power plant. In fact. if amphing, the Superfund Amendmenta cut against and the licensee was central to effective " hostage" plant cases.

the Commission's arguament.m i

l

> W

d sees Federal Register / V:1. 52. NA 44 / Friday, March 6,1987 / Proposed Rules g

amendments demonet ate Congnes' implementing it. The people must

%Is "new" emergency planning belief that State and local participation believe that they are being kept philosophy is nothing more than the in emergency planning is essential. De accurately informed and that those Commission's pre.1980 philosphy in new Commission's second argument is its implementing the plan know what they trappings. Since emergency planning realism argument which is developed in are doing. Otherwin, they are likely to will only be necessary in the extremely more detailin the Shoreham decision.

Ignore instructions and do what they unlikely event that another accident Long /s/andLighting Company think best to protect themselves and occurs,it is, according to the (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit their families. An off.the. cuff emergency Commisalon. cf only secondary 1).CIha6-13. 24 NRC 22 (1986).

response like that approved by the importance.' However, the Commission Basically the theory is that. even il Commission in this rule in unlikely to cites no new safetyinformation to States and localities an refusing to engender the confidence necessary to e support this about. face. In fact the participate in the plaruting procesa. in ensure that the plan really works Commission says that the rule la not the event of an actual emergency they adequately.

' based on any source term or severe will carry out their responsibilities and ne proposed rule might be less accident research.no Commission for lack of a better course will use the objectionable ifit required tho' states specifically that the rule change is utility's plan. no Commission found in Commission to find that reliance o 'y on not based on any finding that plants are Shoreham that such an ad hoc response 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 the present emergency planning rules to protect the public.

level of protection to the public which is were issued and when planning was in assuming that the governments will equivalent to an emergency in fact particiate and that they will use preparedness plac vtl, fullcooperation, considered to be of primary importance the utility plan as a basis for their gt does not even do est Under this to public protection. ne Commission response to an emergency, the does not dispute its 1960 concluston that Commission once again enters the realm. proposal, whether there is adequate State and local participation is the core protection will be determined based on of wishful thinking.* nere is little,if what the utility can reasonably.

f emergency planning and response. In anything. to support this belief. Even if accomplish given the lack of governmen we accept the Commission's cooperation-e "best efforts" standard.,t at an argucy mpnu assumption an ad hoc response by the responsible government o!Iicials is his means that a plant may be licensed with governmental participation is better than one without. The simply inconsistent with the with the core of emergency planning missmg with a less coordinated Commission could come up with only fundamental precepts of emergency mpons'e than would normal!y be ne pkce ofinformaHon met b Merent planning and clearly cannot provide the same level of protection as a plan with possible, and wbere some protective fmm eat avadable in 19% two full cooperation would. An ad hoc actions might no longer be available.

cans gownments have nfund to response means that there will be no.

ne Commission is willing to accept this coopuste in 6e ersucy planning preplanning by the governments.

reduction in the level of protection of the pmcen.ne Comminia pys est in Officials will be forced either to public.

1980 lt did not expect that State and local officials would actually refuse to improvise during an accident (something RationaleforProposedRule' participate. Since there are now cases of which we know did not work at TMI) or to attempt to cany out a plan with What justification does the noncooperation, the mere fact thet which they are not familiar.ney will Commission provide for its willingness governments have refused to participate not have been trained in the elements of to accept a lower standard of public justifies waiving the central the plan or their responsibilities, and protection? ne Commission auerta that requirements of the emergency planning they certainly will not have rehearsed the proposed rule is necessary to put rule and acceptingless protection for the emergency planning back into its proper public.

Od'"I"'cy plans are very place in the regulatory scheme. ne no Commission specifically Emergen complicated.They must be in order to Commission decision on this proposed recognized in 1980 the potential for rule arnounts to a repudiauon of the governmentalinaction to effect

• "[Ch', 0' ",'"

b g

,cc d de a td Commission's judgment in 1980 that operation of plants, and the Commission lan for them. Everyone must be er.2ergency planning was just as specifically considered and rejected the familiar with the plan and his or her important as other safeguards hke argument presented by some who responsibilities if these plans are to engineered safety featune. The commented on the rule that the rule I

work smoothly.nus training and Commission now argues that while should not be promulgsted because of rehearsal are essential, and the emusmey planning is important. It is the possibility that inaction by local Commission's regulations recognize this. really only of secondary importance, governments might affect the operation if a particular government has not According to this ent, because it is of some reactors.De Commission g

participeted in advance planning, none only "an additional evel of blic responded to these commenters by of these fundamentalpre aratory steps protecun eat comu ido p ay only in stating that l

will have been taken. an the ne nut eat een ufeguards fad. es govemmental response will be less Conunluton can lutinaMy take a mon

& cuve Dexible approach and waive emergency

• In sopon orits resenen et emersency

,.nny io a.econa.rs,ure, me co,iurus. ion enes 1

Another element essential to en planning mquinmuta d eey cost tu ee reci sat so es comnusema ahwed l

effective and efficient emergency much to implement.

i l

"28t1'Le P ants to continue to operste wtule emersency pian, were beins developed es support re sponse is that the local populace must for its theory that emersency P.lannine is lese l

have confidence in the plan and in those e Tw. soes twyand the - decreten is r

impenani to ear 'y than emer resustda.

cu.asas wtw.h sisted est me cemen.ie. e.'

tratormn.tery. een ersonant tecks merit m eu.a s ress!.%a reqwre that en adegwe pt comunmi enee prwideo srece periods for e If the severnmente do not pate, eone must schlete does reductions generetly comparable operaune plaats to enne 6 ate compbance with new f

utittlee may

,.n..,. set have the leghority te. carry to those poselWe under a plan enth sovernmog, n,e,ty toquarveents As onceDest esemphs is the sefe ei,,

,.m,e m c n m

,ceai.e r* -

l l

l

}

~*Weg,

Federal Register / V 1. 52. Nr. 44 / Friday. March 6.1987 / Proposed Rul:s 8987 The Commission believes that the potenual public b the cv:nt of an accidXt at o Washington C163. He applicable restrictica of plant operstico by State and local offic!ste is not signalleant! ddTerent la nuclear power plant. State and local service information may be obtained government partacipation in the process from Brahsh Aerospace PLC.labranan

,,[$

["*g*,

is essential to ensure that there will be for Service Bulletins. P.O. Box 17414.

reactor operesien, such as soning and land an adequate emergency response and Dulles International Airport, use laws. corsnention of pubits convenience optimum protection of the public. ne Washington. DC 20041. This informa non and necessaty, Steie Aansc6el and reis Commission's proposal undarcuts both may be exaauned at the FAA.

cone 6dereuons Ito Cnt senti)L and Federal of these principles.The rule change is Northwest Mountsin Region.17900 environmentallowedes FR 5840sk based on the concept that emergency Pacific Highway South. Seattle.

The Comsdasion noted that a local planning is of only secondary Washington,ce the Seattle Aircraft entity's support for esseesesey planning troportaace-a concept which should Certification Office. 9010 East Margma!

was something that would have to be have been unthinkable after ut! and Way South. Seattle, Washmston.

renewed periodically, but the Chemobyl, and accepts the idea that an e

Commission believed that State and emergency plan with absolutely no state con rusmeen moonesarion coerract:

Ms. lud local officials would work with the and local participation la adequate as Branch.yGolder Standardization Federal government and the utilitiae la long as the utility does the best it can.

ANM-113: telephone l':Je)431-planning to protect the public. %o That is simply nonsense. ne 1967. Mailing addrese: FAA Northwest Mountain Region.179tv:Facific Highway Commission recogmaad the potential Commission should not be willing to South.C-600ee Sottle. Washington that a State or localgovermnent could accept only best efforts solely in order gatos.

by its inaction affect the operation of to solve the problem it has with two nuclear plants and decide that that was reactor licensing cases. He Commission supresNTQF0aMam not sufficient reason to alter the should heed the old legal adage "Hard Commente lavited '

provisions of the emergency planning cases make bad law." when considerfag, s

rule. Yet now, becease the Commission whether to adopt a rule which waives Intenstea persons are invited to' is confronted with two very difficult requirements important to publ6c, i..

participata la the making of the cases. Seabrook and Shoreham, the protection in order to break the logjans p.oposed rula by submitting such Commission la willing to change the rule la those two cases.

written data, views, or arguments as and waive what it considered in 1980 to they may desire. Communicatione be the core of adequate emergency

[nt Doc. 87-4756 Filed 3-6 4r; 245 am)

' shoiild identify the regulatory dockal name coon rsse.es as planning. Obviously. the Coauntasiosi s number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specifled above. All commitment to emergency planning only m

lasta as long as it does not get in the communications received on or before way of expeditious licanalng of planta.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOtt the clos date foe comments specified above be considered by the Narrow Circumstancasp Federal Aviation Administrahn Administrator before taking action on ne Commission also attempts to 14 CFR Part 39 ntain d thiaN tica changed te a e rea on ap e in e IDocket No. 07-Nie-10-AD) ight of the comm n ei narrow circumstances. However,the Altworthinese Directives; Britlah both before and after the closing data Aeroepece BAC 1-H S* des AlrPhnes for enants. in me Rulu Docket for a co tder 9a ng a utibry to substitute its best efforts for NF[u Aossocy: Federal Aviation State and local parties ation in Administration (FAA). DOT.

I"/2"E'."%,'a'a"t ggg "*"'-'d '#"*=*

g,97= i wai 6 m d a

• a"!a contact concerned with the substance of cooperste.* Covernments. especially local governments, beve limited sussesAny:His notice proposes to adopt Availability of NPRM personnel and resources, and any an airworthiness directive (ADL number of things on which to expend applicable to certain Modt! BAC 1-11 Any person may obtain a copy of this them. It is possible that in some cases series airplanes, that would requtre Notice of proposed Rulemaking INPRM) these officials may choose to apply their eddy current and ultra sonic inspections by submatting a request to the FAA.

scarce resources to something other of the mata landing gear support beam, Northwest Mountsta Region. Of!!ce of than emergency planning if (manecte beama), and repatr. if the RegionalCounsel(Attention: ANM-nonparticipation will not affect necessary.This action is prompted by a 103). Attention: Airworthiness Rules operation of the planL no Commission report of the collapse of a right hand Dockst No a?-NM-10-AD.17900 Pacific should carefully conaldet this negatlee main landing gear in semce. This failure Hfghway South C48966. Seattle, impact before going forward with the hae been attributed to stress corrosion Was 88 ton 98168' proposed rule.

cracking.

Discussion Conclus/on Dart Comments must be received no

% United Kingdom 0,11 Aviation While I can understand the later than April 24,1987.

Authority (CAA) bas.in accordance Commise6on's trustretien ta dealing with ADDAeSSE2 Send comments on the with emistang provisions of a bilateral the so-called hostage

proposalin duplicate to the Federal airworthiness agreement, nottfled the cannot support this rule.plaat situation.1 Emergency Aviation Administration. Northwest FAA of the collapaa of a right hand mairs planning ta essential to prwieca the.

Mountaln Region. Office of the Regional landing gear on a Model BAC1-11 Counsel (Attention: ANM-Itn)..

airplane. ne subsequent metallurgical Attention: Airworthiness Rufes Docket examinatnan discioned that the leading

.Mr..temespLa.u,mYQ*,,,$,*,",NN No. 87-NM-10-AD.17900 Pacine gear support beam (rnanacle beam) bed Highwey South CA8968. Seattle.

suffered seeare cracking des to strus l'e i

, _ _ _ _ _ _ _