ML20209B680

Forwards Press Release & Fr Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Re Proposal to Establish Criteria for Evaluation of Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants When State or Locality Elects Not to Participate

ML20209B680
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/16/1987
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bevill T, Glenn G, Jeanne Johnston, Lloyd M, Synar M HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., SCIENCE, SPACE & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERLY, SENATE, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Shared Package
ML20209A941	List: ML20209A936 ML20209A978 ML20209B036 ML20209B099 ML20209B104 ML20209B147 ML20209B256 ML20209B399 ML20209B453 ML20209B680 ML20209B739 ML20209B817 ML20209B839 ML20209B958 ML20209C058 ML20209C138 ML20209C191 ML20209C309 ML20209C372 ML20209C397 ML20212Q058 ML20212Q062 ML20212Q066 ML20212Q110
References
NUDOCS 8704280495
Download: ML20209B680 (15)

Text

. -

4

,s G CEaug

,of o UNITED STATES g

i y , f.a g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'" W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g .l ' C o

' N../ o CHAIRMAN March 16, 1987 The Honorable Tom Revill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives .;

Washington, D.C. 20515 1

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I an enclosing copies of the press Release concerning proposed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 6980) on March 6, 1987. The proposed rule wouTd establish criteria for the evaluatic.n 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 sixtv-day period for public comment.

Sincerely,

/\ t pcase W. N Lando W. Ze , .

Enclosures:

1. Press Release

2. Federal Register hotice cc: Rep. John T. Myers l

8704280495 870316 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR l

g9#"G%g fr. ,g UNITED STATES

. yiv< g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3f np WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, ,, ,f CHAIRMAN March 16, 1987 The Honorable .1 Bennett Johnston, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate j Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosing copies of the Press Release concerning proosed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was published in the Federal i P.egister (5' FR 6980) on March 6, 1987. The proposed rule-wouTH 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, CLMf4 Lv . ,

Lando W. Zech .1 r .

Enclosures:

1. Press Release

2. Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Mark 0. Hatfield 1

e 1

>3 UQtig

'd 'o UNITED STATES S 'i ( ,, / " gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.' .

g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

'u o[

CHAIRMAN March 16, 1987 The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Pesearch and Development Committee on Science, Space, and Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Chairman:

I am enclosing copies of the Press Release concerning proposed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register (5? FD 6980) on March 6, 1987. The proposed rule wouTd 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, W

Lando W. Ze , Jr

Enclosures:

1. Press Release

2. Federal Re_gister Notice cc: Rep. Sid Morrison

a vec oq f, fog UNITED STATES

. y ,,f g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ,* ' C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20G55 o

%J o

+....

CHAIRMAN March 16, 1987 The Honorable John Glenn, Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosing copies of the Press Release concerning prooosed additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was oublished-in the Federal Register (52 FR 69801 on March 6, 1987. The proposed rule would establish criteria for the evaluation of emergencv 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, cv.

Enclosures:

Lando W. Zec C( '

dr.

1. Press Release

2. Federal Register Notice cc: Senator William V. Roth, Jr.

1

o q,, UNITED STATES 8(j ) 3-q g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g J \,* cc WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o, b N

%,$' +

CHAIRMAN March 16, 1987 The Honorable Mike Synar, Chairman Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee nn Government Operations tinited States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. .?0515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I an enclosing copies of the Press Delease concernion nrnposad additions to the emergency planning rules and the notice of proposed rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 6980) on March 6, 1987. The proposed rule would establish criteria for the evaluation of amergency 4

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, Dv . .

L a n d o '4 . 7.ec), Jr.

Enclosures:

1. Press Release

2. Federal Register Notice cc: Rep. William F. Clinger, Jr.

i

]

f' "'%. UNITED STATES f .i w (,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'V Office of Public Affaire t

\ . 2.( . #' Washington, D.C. 20555 No. 87-32 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel. 492-7715 (Thursday, February 26, 1987)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONERS V0TE 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 in 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."

It is clear to us that the issue raised is one of l

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 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 to 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."

i i

---,--,----r _ _ _ _ - _ , -_y..- - -,_. - . . - --__--_-- --- ~-- -- --w - - _ - - - ,,- .

6900 l Proposed Rules ,

r d-i +

Vol. 52. No. 44 Friday, March e tes?

whether powm favor continuation of Deted; March 3. tee 7

) True eacton of wie FEDEllAL. REGISTER contans nouces to the pubNc of ele marketing order programs.De Kommedt A.Gilles. ., ,

proposed issuance of rules and Secretary would consider terminatio of Assistant Sec.vtory/prMor6 ting and regulehens. De purpoos et Utsee noece the order ifless than two. thirds of e Inspection services.

is terested en

y, , ,, growers ofladian River grapefrul oting (FR Doc. e7-4785 Filed 3-4-er; 445 am)

% pn , m ,,e adopton of wie anal in the referendum and growers less emme ones mee.e rules. . q. '

than two-thirds of the volume such fruit represented in the rete um

'#*"""'*"**"*" 'l NUCt. EAR REGULATORY DEPARTRAENT OF. AGRICULTURE evaluating the mer'its of tinuan' ce COGARAISSION ,

Agricultural Martieting Service versus termination, the cretary will '

not only consider the ults of the 10 CFR Part 50 1 continuance referend but also other 'C I 7 CFR Part 912 Ucensing of Nuclear Power Plants '

relevant informatio newning the Grapefruit Grownin the ineSan River operation of the o r and the relative mem Stak end/or Loesi Oletnctin Flottda; Order Directin9 antages to producers. Gownmente DecAno To Coopwak in i benefits and di

Referendum Be Conducted; handlers, and c sumers la order to ONelk Emergency Manning Determinetton of Representative determine wh et continued operation Aoency: Nuclear' Regulatory -

l' Period for Voter Eligliility; and of b orde'r ' ould tend to effectuate the Dealgnetion um AgentsTo decimd p cy of the Act. Co==laalosW' gey,o,e p,,po sed rule. ~

' In any ent. section 6:(16)(B) of the .

Aossocy: Agricultural Marketing Service. Act req e the Secretary to terminate aussesAnf.no Nuclear Regulatory USDA. ,- an o whenever the Secretary finds Comunission is considering whether to that majority of all growere favor - amend its rules maarding offsite Actiose Refmndum order l te ation, and such majority produced emergency planning at nuclear power aussesany: his document directs that a fo market more than 50 percent of b Pl ant situ.De amendment being

• %ferendum be conducted amag mmodity covered by such order. considad would,in limited

! g owers ofIndian River grapefnsit circumstances, allow the issuance of a kha R."I'o&. Souew Markedag -

ssown in Florida to determine whether Field Oh Frun and Vegehble full-PoweroPerstingHoenseevenif the

{ they favor continuance of the marketing 8tiBly cannot meet all of NRC's current DMelm AMS, USDA. Fid m .

• niw Pmsnm. emergency Pl anning requirements when, Building. P.O. Box 227s, Winter Haven.

cant Refmndum period March 23 contrary k 6e Ceaunission a Florida 33883-2278, and Jacquelyn R.

through April 17.1987. * "Pectadone wha Hs emagency Schlatter. Marketing Order Pon rustman peronnation cow?

Adainistration Branch. Fruit and f***""N"I" ""P" "" I*0' 8" I'

• Ronald L Cloffi. Chief. Marketi Order Vegetable D6vistoa. AMS. USDA.

i 4

Administratton Branch. FaV. local govanurnts in the development or Washington. DC 20250. are herel,Y implementation of offsite emergency USDA. Washington, DC 20, designated as referendum agents of the I

telephone (202) 447-see7 plans.ne Commission believes that ce o pub c ealth and ade un a n

i sumasssaffAAV NIFonesA Pursuant ad ppl r b!e o g'I

to Order No.912 as ame ed (7 CFR Part 912), and the appli ble provisions the reimadumil beobroced the " Procedure 8PProach.

for the Conduct of Referenda in pan: Comment pwfod expira May 5.

of the Agricultural eting Agreement Connection with Marketing Orders for I

Act of 1937, as ame ed (7 U.S.C. 801 1987. ..

j Fruits. Vegetables, and Nuts Pursuant to i through 674),it is y diacted that a Comments received after this date t

the AgriculturalMarketing Agreement w I be considered if it is practicable to j' referendum be co ucted within the i period March 23 ush Apru17 tes7 Act of 1937, as amended" (7 CPR 900.400 do so but assurance of considwation '

the gro es who, during the d 8'N d

• can be given only for comments filed on '

amo)Augus .1985. through luly 31. Coples of the texts of the aforesaid or before this date.

! perio 1986 (which riod is hereby deted amended marke ordu may be *====a== Submit written comments l namined in &e o cu d ee

to be a rep sentative period for the to: Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory referendura agents or of the Director. on. DC 205&5, 1 purposes f such referendum),were Commission. Was

! engage in the State of Florida,in then Fruit and Vegetable Division'e.U.S. ATIM Docketing Service Branch. I

!' prod on of grepefruit covered by the AgricuhuhlMaskedag Smic Deliver comments to: Room 1121.1717 H 1 said ended marketing agreement sad Department of Agriculture. Washington. Street NW, Washington.DC between I DC 20250. , ~

o for market in tresh fona to .

a:15 a.mi. and 820 p.m. weekdays. l l

~

e risin whethe continuance of the Ballots to be cast la the referendum Examine coaunents vocalved at:NRC id amended marketing oeder is may be obialmed froei the referendum PublicDesument Room.1717 H Street. l avored by the growere. .

. ; . . . agents and from their appointees- NW., Washigten,GdkM '

~. 4 i i 'Ibe Secretary of Agriculture has Autbesleydtyteultural Marketing . Feslpulmeen ceNTacT:

deteronised that continuance sofetenda .

• Asroement Aasaf toer,asanseded. sees.t- PeterG Chis( ofGo General *

• i are an a5ective means for eenerhiales - te essist.st.as amendedif UAC.est-ert. Coeiset. U.S. Regulatory ' " ' '

1

,y

• e % e, .-

i - g.,

= . 4 e . ,, ,

,., .,A*

• S

". w

• f*} h&;._ ~

• It% .

o Fed:r:I Regist:r / Vcl. 52. No. 44 / Friday. M:rch 6,1987 / Proposed Rules 6987 The comunsinon behnea that the potenual publicin the event cf an cccident ct a W:shingt:n 9ettM. n2 cpplicabl2

, reatnction of plant operation by Stata and nuclear power plant. State and local service infonr attor may be obtained local offidata la not signaticanti different in government partacipation in the prouse from Brihsh Aerospace pl4.12brarian

%[ *

' , ' " , ' *g ,,,'h reactor operstaan, such as soning and land is essential to ensure that there will be an adequate emergency response and for Service Dulletins, p.O. Box 17414 Dulles International Airport.

usa laws, caruncat.an of publ6c convenience optimum protection of the public.The Washington. DC 20041.nis information and necessity. Ststa Roandal and rata Commission's proposal undercuts both may be examined at the FAA.

considerations (10 CF1t 30.Mf)k and Federal of these principles.The rule change is Northwest Mountein Region.17900 environmentallows. (65 FR 6640s). based on the concept that emergency Pacific Highway South. Saattie.

De Commission noted that a local planning is of only secondary Washington,or the Seattle Aircraft

.' entity's support for emergency planning importaue-a concept which should Certification Offim. 9010 East Marginal '

was something that would have to be have been unthinkable after TMI and Way South. Seattle. Washington.

. renewed penodleally, but the Chernobyl, and accepts the idea that an pon pusrfwemwronasAMON C0sGACE i Commission believed that State and ernergency plan with absolutely no state Ms. Judy Colder. Standardization local officials would work with the and local partacipation is adequate as Branch. ANM-113: telephone (206) 431-l Federal government and the utilities in long as the utility das the best it can. 1967. Mailing address: FAA. Northwest planning to protect the public.na That is simply nonsense, ne Mountain Region.17900 Pacific Highway 8,

Commission recogruzed the potential Commission should not be wil!!ng to South. C-68966. Sea ttle. Wa shington that a State or local government could accept only best efforts solely in order 9 ales.

4 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. ne Commission sumwfq uaonmanom not sufficient reason to alter the should heed the old legal adage "Ifard , Comments invited '

s provisions of the emergency planning cases make bad law." when considerfag Interested persons are invited td whether to adopt a rule which waives participate rule. Yet now, because is confronted with two very difficult the Commission , requirementa important to public, sin. the

. making of the .-

proposed rula by submitting such cases. Seabrook and Shoreham, the ~ protection in order to break the logjam written da'fa. visse, or arguments as Commission le willing to change the rule in those two cases.

they may desire. Communications and waive what it considered in 1980 to (F1t Doc. e7-475e Filed 3-5-e7; at45 aml ' should identify the regulatnry dockat .

be the core of adequata emergency - satseo caos res swe number and be submitted in duplicate to planning. Obviously, the Commission's the address specified above. All commitment to emergency planning only communications received on or before lasts as long as it does not get in the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION the closing date foe comments specified way of expeditious licensing of planta.

above will be considered by the Narrow Circumstances? Federal AviaUon Administration Administrator before taking action on rule. prop i ne Commission also attempts to justify its rule change on the ground that 14 CFR Part 39 0' gp :

,n , des ma gg, the change ready only applies in very (Docket No. 87-m8-10-AD) in light of the comments received. All y ' comments submitted will be available.

C mEs e rUon se a ve y Altworthiness Directives; British both before and after the closing data important consideration. By allowing a A*fo8 pace BAC 1-11 Series Airplanes foe comments,in the Rules Docket for utility to substitute its best efforts for Aorwcy: Federal Aviation onmination by intare:ted persons. A State and local participation in report summarizing each FAA public Administration (FAA). DOT. contact concerned with the substance of lanning. th l th fncent es for these govebe A of Pmposed rulemaking ents toI this proposal will be filed in the Rules cooperate.* Covemments. especially (NPRM). Docket.

local governments, have limited suesMARY:'Ihis notice proposes to adopt AvaDabDity of NPRM .

personnel and resources, and any an airworthiness directive (AD).

numberof things on which to expend applicable to certain Model BAC 1-11 Any Pemn may a c py he them. It is possible that in some cases series airplanes, that would requfre ce p d N em 4 M M these officials may choose to apply their eddy current and ultra sonic inspections h su  % a repst b 6e E scarce resources to some ing othat

• an ergency p of the main landing gear support beam.

(manacle beams), and repair,if *['

g s en'it 103). Attentforu Airworthiness Rules ration the pfant Commisslon p)oYt collap oeig(P Docket No. 87 ' .M-10-AD 17900 Pacdic

. i should carefully consider this negative main landing teat in service. This failure Highwey South. G-68966. Seattle, impaet before going forward with the as ngton98168.

has been attributed to stress corrosion proposed rule. crseking. Discussion Conclusion -

oAft: Comments must be received no ne United Kingdom Ov0 Aviation While I can understand the later than April 24.1987. Authority (CAA) has. In accordance Commission's frustrationin dealing with ADOpsense* Send comments on the with existing provlsions of a bilateral the so-called " hostage" plant situation.1 proposalin duplicate to the Federal airworthiness agreement, notified the d

cannot support this nde. Emergency - Aviation Administration. Northwest FAA of the collapse of a right hand main planning is essential to prowcs the. Mountain Region. Office of the Regional landing gear on a Model BAC1-11 i .

Counsel (Attention: ANM-103). ' . . airplane.ne subsequent metallurgical

• h M -m edW g Attentfon: Airworthiness Rules Docket .examinetton diectooed Get the landing

,,,,,,,4 m rou ,,,,,,,em ,4 mi. No.87-NM-10-AD 17900 Pacific . , gear support beam (rnanacle beam) bed j consara abee me papsent. - ~ m u . Highway South. G48966. Seattle. . suffered severe cracking due to stresa .

l 1 ,

a y -

t

e 6968 Tederal Registzt / Vol. 52. No. 44 / Friday March 6.1987 / Proposed Rules

, amendments demonstrate Congress' implementing it. The people must This "new" emergency planning belief that State and local partiripation believe that they are being kept philosophy is nothing more than the in emergency planning is essr.nial.The 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 reellem argument which is developed in are doing. Otherwise, they are likely to will only be necessary in the extremely j more detail in the Shoreham decision. Ignore instructions and do what they unlikely event that another accident long Island Lighting 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 Commission. of only secondary

1) CU-Bo-13. 24 NRC 22 (1986). response like that approved by the importance.8 However, the Commisslon Basically the theory is that, even if Commission in this rule in unkkely to l cites no new safety information to j States and localities are refusing to engender the confidence necessary to ' support this about. face. In fact the participate in the planning process. in ensure that the plan really works Commission says that the rule is not the avent of an actual emergency they adequately.

will carry out their responsibdities and based on any source term or severs The proposed mle might be less accident research. ne Commission for lack of a better coune will use the objectionable ifit required tha' utility's plan. no Commission found in states specifically that the rule change is Commissien to find that reliance only on not based on any finding that plants are Shonham that such an ad hoc response a utility plan with no State and local by the governments could be sufficient safer now than they were in 1980 when participation would in fact provide a the present emergency planning rules to protect the public-level of protection to the public which La were issued and when planning was in assuming that the governments will equivalent to an emergency e

in fact particiate and that they mil use considered to be of primary importance 1 the utility plan as a basis for their preparedness plan with full cooperation. to public protection.He Commission it does not even do that Under this response to an emergency, the does not dis uta its 1980 conclusion that Commission once sgain enters the realm proposal, whether there is adequate State and 1 1 participation is the core protection will be determined based on of wishful thinking.' There is little, if what the utility can reasonably ,

f 8 I d "'ponn. in anything, to support this belief. Even Lf accomplish given the lack of governmen h't 6 ts 6e we accept the Commisalon's cooperation-e "best efforts" standard.,t @ns- at an mugmcy rnponn assumption, an ad hoc response by the This means that a plant may be licensed Spunmen paMp "

responsible government officials is with the core of emergency planning bettu than m meout. he simply inconsistent with the Commission could come up m,th only missing, with a less coordinated fundamental precepts of emergency response than would normally be e piece oHnfonnsdon 6at is Muut planning and clearly cannot provide the from that available in 1980-in two poss ble, and where some protective same level of protection as a plan with actions might no longer be available. cans gnenunts han dud to full cooperation would. An ad hoc The Commission is willing to accept this coopnam in 6e mugacy pannW response means that there will be no, reductioninthelevelof protectionof the pr cessMe Canissin nys 6atin preplanning by the governments. 1980 it did not expect that State and public.

Officials will be forced either to local officials would actually refuse to improvise during an accident (something RationaleforProposedRule. participale. Since there are now cases of which we know did not work at TMI) or What justification does the mcooperation, the mm fact est to attempt to carry out a plan with governments have refused to participate which they are not familiar. ney m.il Commission provide for its wilhngness not have been trained in the elements of to accept a lower standard of public justifles waiving the cetral the plan or their responsibilities, and protection? ne Commission asserts that requirements of the emergency planning they certainly will not have rehearsed the proposed rule la necessary to put rule and accepting less protection for the

'I' " "- emergency planning back into its proper public.

place n the regulatory scheme.De The Commisalon specifically co icat d ey must be in order to Commission decision on this proposed recognized in 1980 the potential for j anticipate the many different situations mk ammts to a npudiation of the governmentalinaction to affect  ;

that might occur during an accident and Commission s judgment in 1980 that operation of plants and the Commission plan for them. Everyone must be emergency planning was just as specifically considered and rejected the important as other safeguards like j familiar with the plan and his or her argument presented by some who I responsibilities if these plans are to m8meered safety features. The commented on the rule that the rule work smoothly.nus training and Commission now argues that while should not be promulgated because of i rehearsal are essential. and the emergency planning is important it is the possibility that inaction by local Commluton's regulations recognize this. really only of secondary importance, governments might affect the, operation  ;

if a particular government has not Acc rding to this ent. because it is of some reactors. He Commission participated in advance planning none only"an additional evel of bbe responded to these commenters by s

}

of these fundamentalpreparatory steps pmucHe est comu into p ey only in stating that )

will have been taken, and the the emt 6st een ufeguards fail. 6e l Commission can justifiably take a more governmental response will be less ,g,,,,,,,,,ri,,,,,,,,,g , ,,, ,,,,,,c, effective flexible approach and waive emergency p an,uns io s aecondary rule. s commission cates i

Another element essential to an planning nquinmuts if 6ey cost too e fact anon m se Conmunion anowed effective and efficient emergency much to implement. exiserts plants to anunue to op. rite whu.

emersency plans were betes developed as support response is that the local populace must for its theory ht emersency ptannins is less have confidence in the pf an and in those a This ,oes beyond the Comme aion decreton in import ai to safety than other .areguards.

C13-a6-1s whadi stated that the Commisalon's ? J Unfortunately. that ergJaent t4Cka m.ftl. The existing regulettoa require that an adequate plan ~ Commission often provides grece periods for a If b governmenta do not participate. sonse must achieve dose reductions generally usipareble operatins plaats to cosne Lato compliance with new stilitlee may set have the legas esthority to carry ' to those pose!ble under a plan with gave oot parts of their plans. - * * * - - p~ safsty requirements As exceDeat example la the participettaeL s4 NRC siso. Bre protection rule. ' . ' '

l

~ ., '4.

>

• k q .., ,'

4*2

,  % L

• ebg . M

,_, _ ,, ' ' ' ~ " '

• l Federal Registir / Vst. 52. Ns. 44 / Friday. March 6,1987 / Proposed Rules 6985 l t

this rub, the Commisalon demonstrates emergency pt:nning %e Commission

. De rule provides for an alternative to that we in the Un ted States are on the acknowledged that it a proposal to view opposite course, compliance with NRC requirements in '

emergency planning being as equivalcat those cases where the inability of the l N Eme'8"'Y hWAule to.rather than secondary to, sitmg and utility to meet the regulations is '

design in public protection departed substantially the ruult of the failure of Prior to 1979 the Commission hed from the agency's earlier approach to State and local governments to concluded that siting of nuclear power emergency planning, Powever, the l

plants coupled with the defense.tn depth rwaaion stated: participate in the emergency planning process.De rule substitutes for {

opptosch to design of the lants wee l complianca with the regulations a "best adequate to rotect the p lie.%e NRC considered eprobabilityof an , m""j" ,,",.'['

g (' efforts" standerd. %e Coenmission may I acddent with offsite cons rqaences to be of events that occurred at nroe M0e teland, license a plant where there is no '

so low as k make ncy planning ne accident showed dudy that h partidpation by State and local j

unnamaany. As a rw t, there was little protectiong provided by siting and gtneered governments in emergency planning.

..f.,y eaturn must be bolstered by the De utility must instead submit its own ]

planning by state and local authorities I to respond to an incident at a nuclear abihty to take protective meuures dimas the plan for Commlnton approval.%e power plant. course of an occident ne acddent also utility must have tried to obtain showed clearly that co-sita conditions and la March of1979 there was an actions, even tf by do not cause signi$ cant governmental cooperation. De utility accident at the %ree Mile Island plaat off-eite radiological consequences, wt!! affed most have done thebst it couldin in pennsylvania. There had been little h way various State and local enuties react developing a plan and measures to planmng by the state and local - to protect h pablic from dangers, ru! or compensate for lack of cooperation by governments responsible for desling bneginal, associsted with h accident.'A govemment authorities given the

" circumstances and taking into account I a nfused e re th its a tory m participation of the State and local Procedures for coordination among to protoce the pubtle health and safety,Ibe governments in the case of an actual various governments; there were no Commission mut be in a position te know emergency. And, the utility must provide

, clear lines of authority; there were no ht o!!4ite governinental plans han been copies of th. plan to responsible clear procedures for or means to reviewed and found adequeta.no -

government entities.

disseminate information; there were no Commission finds that the public can be protected within b framework of the ne Commission states thatit clear procedures for determining Atomic Energy Act only if additional believes this rule change will not whether to take protective action or how a gnficantly alter the level of protection to carry it out once 11 had been decided attention is given to emergency response planning. (44 FR 731891 provided to the public for several re @ce the rule goes into temen s ess ntiaYto an efrecti e naa. the Commission found that efrect, non participating governments emergency response existed. Because of am"gency planning was euential to are likely to drop their objections and the disarray on the part of nearly rotect the public and that state and , begin to cooperate with emergency I

everyone involved in the response to the focal participation in emergency planning because they will not longer BU accident, people living in die ares planning was central to adequate have any incentive to not cooperate.

eround the plant did not know what emergency preparedness. (2) State and local governments who i

information was accurate and did not have n t participated in ptanning will know whetherit was safe to stayin the 1967 Eme ' 'Y Tlann/ng Rule i

carry out their responsibilities in the area or whether to leave.Most people ne NRCs emergency planning rule event of an actaal emergency.

simply did whatever they thought best. has been in effect now for almost seven (3) Title III of the 1986 Superfund ne Commission realized after this years. In general,it has worked we!L Amendments make it more hkely that 3

experience that improved advance State and local govemments, the utilities State and local govarnments will planning was necessary to deal with and the Federal government have all participate.

similar situations in the future. no n0 worked together to develop emergency Unfortunately, the Commission's

)

accident made it clear that in the case of plans for most new and operating assertions are either irrelevant, an emergency with a potential for plants. However, there have been a few significant offsite radiation releases insufficient or based simply on wishful exceptions. The State and local thinking. De Commission's suertion 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 refused to submit emergency plans for living around the plants.no suddenly see thelight drop allof their approval or to participate in utility objections and begin to cooperate seema Commission recognized that. even if planning.nese governments by there were no offsite releases, an to be based on not anch more than refusing to partidpate are making it wishful thinking. De Commission's accident could affect what the state and difficult. if not impossible, for the local governments did in an attempt to third argument relles on the Seperfund utilities to meet NRC requirements and Amendments which are largely protect their citizens. For this reason, to get licenses to operate their plants.

the Commission proposed a rule trrelevant to the issues here.ne mere his state of affairs has proven fact that the States are required to requin'na. as a condition of!!censfng extremely frustrating for the plants. that there be state and local establish emergency planning Commission.De State and local commiselons to deal with planning foe emergency response plans sufficient to meet Commission requirements. (44 FK government positions in these two cases chemical planta and the Ilhe has little have stretched out the licensing process relevance to whether a State will give 75tS7).The Commission expressly for plants which the NRC Staff feels are up its opposition to participating in site- l recognized that participation in planning otherwise safe to operate.The specific emergency planning for a 4 by state and local autbeeities and l coordination between the goeernments Comadeolon's proposed rule is an effort ' nuclear power plant. In fact. lf anything. I to break the logfam la these two the Superfund Amendments cut against l and the licensee was central to effective " hostage" plant cases. . s. the Commission's arguasset.no l i

G e l W . . .' -

s 69M Fedri Register / Vol S2. No. 44 / Friday. March 6.1987 / Propos:d Rules

^

Commission's regulations in Subpart A are issued under sec. telb. es Stat. 04a. as For the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion.

of to CFR part 51. that this rule is not a a mended (42 Uit 2201(b)k ll mio (b) and samaal). chink.

major Federal action significantly (cj and m54 are issued under sec.1stL sa Secretaryof Aecommission.

affecting the quality of the human Stat. 941 as amended (42 USC 2201(ill: and 1 environment and therefore an il 50 47tek sa55(e).Sa59(bh sua art. SepanWewe &mmlub j environmental impact statement is not 50.72. Sa73. and 5a78 are tasued under sec. Asselstine required.ne Commission has prepared. 1sto, se Stat.9% as amended (42 Uit Emergency planning la essential to j in support of this finding en 220ttolk protect public health and safety and trw environmental assessment which is 2. Section 50.47 is amended by adding active participation of state and local avallable for inspection and copying, for a new paragraph (e) to read as follows: sovernments in the planning procese is

! a fee, at the NRC Public Document fundamental to adequate emergency Room.1717 H Street. NW, Washington. I 50.47 Emergency plana. planning.hu are the lessons we DC. * * . leamed from the nice Mile Island Regulatoey Analysia (e) he Commission may issue a full accident. and this is the reason the I Commission promulgated its emergency ne Commisdon has prepared a power operating license for a facility notwithstanding non-compliance with lanning rules in 19eo. However, these regulatory analysis for this regulation, fessons seem to have been forgotten by his analysis further examines the coats other requirements of this sectice and to the pnsent Commission. In proposing this rule change.the Commission takes a and benefits of the proposed action,ad . CFR Part 50. Appendix E If non.

the attematives considered by the compliance lack of arhes participation substanthily in the frorn development a

step back in time to 1978 when m -

Commission.ne analysis is available for inspection and copying. for e fee. at orimplementation of offsita emergency , emergency planning was relegated to a planning by a State or local government, position of secondaryimportance -

the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H -l and if the applicant demonstrates to the because it was eought to be unMely to Street. NW Wa shington. DC. ever be neme=ary.ne Commission's For the reasons set out in the Commission's satisfaction that proposal allows licensing of a nuclear preamble, and under the authority of the- (1)ne non-compliance muld be .

Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended, remedied, or adequately compensated no- Stak power plantgovumnant orlocal where there is absolutely -

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 for by reasonable State or local participation in emergeacy planning.

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553. the govemmental cooperation:

" & Commission 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 CHL Part 50: cooperation of the necessary the f%mminaion substitutes for the govemments: .

requirements of the regulations a "best PART 50-DOnlESTIC LICENSING OF (3) Applicant's o!Tsite emergency plan afforts" standard of protection.He PROOUCTION AND UTILIZATION includes effective measures to FACILITIES Commission ta thus willing to accept a compensate for the lack of coop % don level of protection of the pubtle health 1.ne authority citation for Part 50 which are reasonable and achievable and safety which is lower than that continues to read as follows: under the circumstances and which take afforded by the Commission's current Authenry: Seca.1oL lo3.104.105.161.182.

into acmunt a likely State or local regulations.1 cannot support a rule 183.1aa.189. 68 Stat. 93s6 037. 94 94s. 953. Sponse to an actual emergency; and which sanctions such an erosion of the 954,955. 958, a s amended. sec. 234. a3 StaL (4) Apphcant has provided copies of Commission's emerEency planning 12s4. as amended (42 USC 2132. 2133. 2134. the offsita plan to all governments which requirements.

2135. 2201. 2232. 2233. 2238. 2239. 22a2h seca. would hava otherwise participated in its Nor can I support the Commission's 201. as amended. 2c2. 206, se Stat 1242. as preparation or Implementation and has stated justification for this change-that a mended.1244.1246 (42 USC 5641. 5842- assured them that it stands ready to adhering to current safety standards for Se tion 50.7 also ismied under Pub. L e5-c perate should they change their emergency planning might impose eat, ecc.10 s2 Stat 2s51(42 Uit Sa51L Position. economic costs on the utilitiee in cases i Secnon 5010 also inanad undee seca 101.185 3. In Appendix E. section F is in which, absent state and local sa Stat. 93a e55, as amendad (42 UAC 2131. amended by adding a new parograph 6 govemment participation. the

. 2235k sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat 853 (42 to read as followa: Commission is unable to make the i USC 43321. Sections 50.23. 50.35. 255. 50.56 public health and safety findings I ll i

i .

also issued under sec.185. 88 Stat. 955 (42 USC 2235). Sections 50.33a. 5&55a and Appendix E.-Emergency Plannmg and Preparednese for Production and Utilization required by our current regulations.

Dese adverse economic consequences Appendix Q also issued under sec.1o2. Pub. Fadlities L v1-190. 83 StaL a53 (42 UAC 4332). . . . e . simply mt save as a.niid basis for Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under p miaxing ee Commission a safety i ecc. 204. as Stat.1245 (42 USC 5s441 r* Ai"8. . . regulations and for abandoning the Sections 50.54. mas and 5032 also issued 6. Offsite govemmental participation in an central elements of emergency planning.

I under Pub. L 97-415,90 Stat. 2073 (42 USC emcfse is not required to the extent sa la the face of the experience of Dree 2239). Section 5a78 also issued under sec. applicant orlicensee re!!es upon to CFR Mile Island and more recently at

{

122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 USC 2152). Sections 50.47(e). In such cases. an exercise with Chernobyl. the fMmminalon should be l

g SoJo through 50 81 also leeued tmder sec.184, particiaption by the applicant or IIcensee and seeking ways to strengthen our se Stat. 954, as emended (42 USC 2234). othat cooperating govemmental entitites

.3 emergency planning requirements and to Section So.to3 also iseued under sec.10s. es shall be held.

enhance state and localgovernment Stat. 339 as amended (42 USC 213ak .

Appendtr F also issued under sec.187* es preparedness to cope with a serious i b separate views of Commissioner nuclear accident.Dat is one of the l Stat ess (42 USC 2237).

ror the parposee at esc. 223. as Stat osa, as ^**etstine tonow. . .. lessone of Chernobyl being teamed by I amended (42 USC 2273k ll mio (ak(b) .. Dated at Wuhingram DC. this 2nd day of . . many European countries.

and (c). 50.44. 5a486 50.48. 5034 and 50.sa(s) March.19st. Unfortunately, by its action in proposing i

l

' l a .

. M. ,

W -

i 4 i

j Fed:ral Regist:r / Vcl. St. Nr. 44 / Friday. March 8.1987 / Prep: sed Rules 6983 planning zone (EPZ) to keep them represent would have much to gain and to amend Section F of to CFR Part 50.

Informed of the status and provisions for nothing to lose from cooperation. 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 De pendency of this proposalis not the details of the compensator out their traditional public health and intended to effect any ongoing reviews i measures included in the plan,ythe safety roles and would therefore or hearings of emergency planning

arrangements included for their respond to an accident. It is reasonable issues under existing regulations.

involvement in the event of a real to expect that this respona would including to CPR 50.12.

~

i follow a comprehensive utility plan. De Comunission is currently pursuing emergency,dand training: an the availability of %Ird, the likelihood that State and the feasibuity of additional abanges to

! (4) Offsite exercisee that demonstrate local governments would cooperate may emergency pla"nning requirements based

! { implementation of the plan of the extent '

be bolstered by Title 111 of the Superfund

• on the source term and severe accident i

feasible. . .

- Amendments and Resuthorisation Act programs.De Imadein this

' Comments are requested on these of1938, which requires States to nouce is not be on either of these alternative approaches to emergency establish State emergency response programs. ,

planning.%e rule changes in option 2 commissions.he planning and l

, are not dependent in any way on new notification requirements enacted in that EdAt AnalIsis l Information about nuclear plant - Act are based on the same philosophy %Is Emendment does notimpose any l

accident source terms, probabilistic risk adopted by the Commission in its own new requirements on production or assessments, or scientific studies of the emergency planning regulations.In fast . utilization facilities:it only provides an risk reduction potential of emergency EPA's Chemical Emergency alternative method to meet the .

planning.* De option would be based - Preparedness Program is compatible in Commission's emergency planning i a on the consideration of what should be many respects with the Commission's regulatione.%e amendasent therefore is i

the appropriate underlying philosophy emergency response program, and EPA's not a backfit under10 CPR 50,10s and a i 1 or approach to emergency planning as a Interim Guidance issued in November backfit analysis is not required. ,

J i

prelicensing regulatory requirement-a . 1986 (revision 1) specifically crose-consideration which is prompted by the references Commission and FEMA p, gamgg .

)

1

. change in circumstances which have .i guidance on radiological emergenqr his proposed rule amends been experienced since the regulations . response. (It should be noted. however. . Information collection requirements that were promulgatedin19eo,i.e the . . that the Superfund amendments do not am subject to the paperwork Reduction phenomenon, not then expected, of State require that industrial faciliues cease Act of1980 (44 USC 3501 ef seg.).his and localgovernments. refusing to operation if a State refuses to establish rule is being submitted to the Office of i $ cooperate in emergency planning . . the required State organization.) Since Management and Budget for review and j He practical effects of r%==ia= ion 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 i Commission believes that the level of

~ regarding'ce,peration in emergency Regulatay Maxibinty CordScadon public protection associated with option planning for n. lear power plants may la accordance with the Regulatory

, I two would not be significantly diNerent entall only small additional Flexibility Act of 1980,5 UAC. 006(b). ,

from that provided by the current commitmenta of government resources. the Commission certi8es that this rule regulations.First.if a plant began Moreover. since it will have been will not have a sipu'licant economic operation under the circumstances impact upon a sut>stantial number of established that adequate plannig is

' permitted by the proposed regulation achievable, and a utiuty plan will have small entities. He proposed rule applies change, and all administretive and been required which willinclude only to nuclear power plant licensees i judicial remedies available to plant provisions for possible State and local which are electric utility companies opponents have been exhausted. it cooperation in the event of en accident, dominant in their service areas.Hese

} seems reasonable to expect that the any interim period after commencement licensees are not "small entities" as set 1

governments involved more likely than of plant operation during which non- forth in the Regulatory Flcxibility Act not would change their position and . cooperating govermnents may re- and do not meet the small business size i

cooperete in planning. he governments evaluate their position may be short, standards set forth in Small Business i

or others may dispute whetner planning he time period is, moreover. largely

• Administration regulations in 13 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 vernments with cooperation willbe enhaned accelerate their e orts to develop an IJet of Subjects in le CFR Part BB 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 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 at m the nieve swieer pt.et aniye m governments which oppose plant Radiation protection, Reactor siting proposed which eR r yester protecuan of the operation to develop adequate

' Criteria. Reporting and recordkeeping petic hatth and wrety the de currest demans, contingent emergency plans that would requirements.

then which ddines.ineumuu the sud iesforuns mersency m.y be p errro'l.nning in only come into pIey ahouId the pIent be dmeen er the reda d .nren ruh w e. licensed over their objection. EnvironmenEl Assessment and Floding panic. in ** relemehies. however. mpose. Since an offsite plea developed of No significant EnvironmentalImpact a "c""'4 **'"s **eussardse remelf without State or local cooperation is not he Commission has detpreined D ,%'",,,',ies,',"' ..* likely to be fully exercised. it is under the National Environmental Policy t.o ,',,'",,

g .. ' necessary in conjuncuon with option 2 . Act of tees. as amended, and the i

j '. 3 .

4'** 9' * . . , , * .

.---.------_---~,,_,,--n_,,

- _ - . , . _ _ , , , , --,a-_,,n --m--- ,,, - - , . , - , - - . , . , , . _ , . ,

t l r

" }

l 6982 Federal Register / Vd. 52. Nc. 44 / Priday. March 6.1987 / Pr: posed Ruhe

^ provisions are not conalstent with the planning and preparedness addressed If this option were adopted, the concept that einergency planning and by this rule requires the Commission to Commisalon expects that an resolve. for the futura, which of the two adjudicatory record would need to be preparedness are as important to safety as such engineered safeguards as underlying emergency planning developed to substantiate a utility's approaches it should follow: a relatively claims that the prewnditions fa reactor contalnments or emergency core coollag systems.%e Commission does inflexible one, that w01 require adequate operation are fulfilled if any interested planning and preparedness with little or not ordinarily permit any extended person or affected State orlocal govemment claima, with reasonable - grace period for a large power reactor to no concern for fairness or cost: or a operate without these ufeguards,or more flexible one that foaises on what

' specifidty and basis, that they are not kind of accfdent mitigation (dose -

fulfilled. Moreover, the Commi==1on . allow a plant to operate for a signiGcant emphasizes that it would not be possible period without these safeguards arrMent) becausa can be reduction reasonablyto andthe. . public in the under this option to license a plant far of harsh economic and social full power operation unless the consequences." Rather, thew provisions feesibly accomp!!shed, considering o5of reflect a difiesent concept-that the circumstances.If sound safety applicant dersonstrates that adequate regulation requires the former. then no offsite emergency plannlag is achievable adequate emergency planning and .

and all other aspects of the foregoing preparedness are needed and important. rule change is wananted. lf the latter, but that they sepresent an additional then a change would be in order far.lf criteria are satisfied. nia rulemaking is the fundamental philosophy or approach intended only to address non. level of public protection thet comes -

of emergency phnnineis reasonable l cooperation by responsible State or into play only after all of the other safety requirements for proper plant and achievable dose reduction, this may l local sovernments; it does not provide a - f remedy or excuse for other offsite design. quality construction, and carefulr f properly be understoodin t he sense o  !

disciplined operation have been what is reasonable'and feasible for the emergency planning problema..r , utility to accomplish under all of the '

ne additional Dexibility provided by . considered, and that therefore some such a rule would obviously minimize . regulatory Dexibility is warranted and r circumstances. Including matters i' whichl

. the costs associa: J with alternative . are completely beyond the utility a '

the consequences from the lack of-governmental moperation in the approachee may be taken into account. contmlvW"t 2,"IdFS 'in ,

ne second more flexible emergency.% in the one licensiq case to,dats l development or !=ple=*ation of o!Isite J emerEency plans.He more important planning concept or approach is also - ' whfch this matter of posic em,erpacy" and difficult question is whether or to reflected in consistent and repeated .~. i . ph ming philosophy or approsca has what extent these non-sofety Commission pronouncement that the - oe-n considered the (%==M!onhas fundamental philosophy or approach of taken the view that under the existlag consequences should be a matter of regulations an adequate plan must concern to the Commi.sion in setting emergency planning is to assure

. reasonable and achievable dose achieve dose reductions in the event of

. pre-licensing emergency planmns an accident that are generally

' requirements. reduction should an accident occur.Eg..

Lorg Island 4ghting Company comparable with what might be Le Commission believes that the accomplished with governmental 1980 rule and the Commission's (S oreham Noclear Power Station),

cooperation.LongIslandL.ightmg explanation oI the besin and purpose foc suptu: Southern Colifornio Edison Company. sgra. Bet, as the above the 1980 rule in the rule preamble (45 HI Company (San Onofre). C1.I-83-10,17 discussion makes clear, another 55402. August 19,1980)reDect NRC 528.M3 (198).%e existing emergency planning regulations does regulatory approach is possible which is inconatstent concepts as to the propee set out with option 2. and which focuses place wf offsite emergency planrung and not require that plans achieve any pre-established minimum dose uvings in on what is prudent and achievable dose non-safety costs in the NRC safety reduction taking into account lack of  ;

licensing program. On the one hand. the the event of an accident. For example, approved amergency plans with full gover==>at=1 cooperation. As noted l Commission stated that the new earDer the standards in our existing requirements, as well as proper sitting State and local governmental cooperation have highly variable regulations contemplated governmental and engineered safety features, were evacuation time estimates rangmg from cooperation in ofIsite emergency needed to protect public health and several hours to over ten hours and the planning and preparedness.

safety.Taken in isolation, these ne types of measures,in addition in statements can be read as evidencing a projected does savings for such plans would vary widely.Hus the regulation those normally provided by the licensee, Commission decision that emergency t

is inherently variable in effect and there to compensate for the lack of planning and preparedness as provided cooperation in planning by State and in those revised rules were to be treated are no bright-line. mandatory miniraum as measures cuential to safe operation projected dose savings oc evacuation localgovernments would include:

{' (1) Added plans and procedures of nuclear facilities and therefore to be time limites which could be viewed as

, imposed rigorously without regard to performance standards for emergency - detailing compensating measures; plans in the existing regulation. (2) Added personnel to accompany

. equity or cost.

On the other hand, the Commission Moreover, the dose savmas achieved by and advise State and local officiais in an actuel emer8ency; rejected an option in the rolemaking that implementation of an ernergency plan could have fesd to automatic plant under adverse conditions, e,g., during or (3) Facilities and equipment including

! vehicles, radios, telephone and radiation shutdown if adequate plans were not following heavy snow, could be substantially less than under perfect monitors as required by the plan; I filed because of commenters' concems (4) Special training for personnel about " unnecessarily harsh economic conditions. %La variability is consistent and social consequences to State and with a -ept or approach to implementing compensating measures, emergency planning and preparednees (5) Arrangementsincluding formalized i

,, local governments. utilities, and the  !

that is Dexible rathee than rigid, . ,

, . agreements and contracte foe supporting >

i publir" Operating plants were given s, very subalantial grace periods to conne in the Comenission's view, the narrow servicesa, tr . . . ,.. s .' l Into complisoce before shaldown would circumstance of non-cooperetion.bya - . [6JCipet gommna"tasilhu . r. . . l be consideredor ordered.Dese e- State ce local government in emengsuzy; ; members of thetablic in the.essergency

• l l

1 4 . , '-  ;

i

. , ,}f, t y jr . ,

1 i

4

+

Federal Register / Vcl. 52. Ns. 44 / Friday, M: ch s.1987 / Proposed Rules 6981 ;

1 Commission. Washington, DC 30655 power Station). CU-46-13. 24 NitC 22 has severe non safet consequences

) ,

Telephone:(202) 434-1466. (lese).ne absence of State and local where States and local governments supptansesstany neronesanesela governmental cooperation makes it choose not to cooperate, especially after August of 1900, the Commission more difficult for utility applicants to a plant has been substantially l , promulgated revised regulations demonstrate compliance with the basic constructed. Sfsnincant policy questions i governing emergency planning and emergency planning standard, especiauy of equity and fairness are presented l preparedness at nuclear power plant that part of the standard which requires where a utility has substantially sites (see 10 CFR 50.47 and to CFR part reasonable assurance that adequate completed construction and committed i 50. Appendix E).De need for protective measures "will be taken." substantial resources to a nuclear plant

!  ! improvements had been demonstrated %Is is espedally onerous where a and then, afterit is far too late l' by the inadequate offette response to the utility is powerless under applicable . realistically for the utility to reverse i accident at the nroe Mile Island plant State or local law to itself implement au course, the State or local government j in March of 1979. Among other things. 88Pects of an offette plan.be,in opposes the plant non cooperation in i these regulations envisioned b actual pi s etice, under the Commission's offsite emergency A forced development of offsite emergency' plans existira rules State or local governments abandonment of a comple nuclear l ) with the cooperation of State and local may possibly veto full power operation. plant for which bullons for dollars have governnients in the vicinity of the' even after the plant has been been invested also poses obvious reactor site.

. substantially completed, by choosing serious financial consequences to the

! The Commission's judgment'tlistde . not to cooperate. utility, retepayers and. taxpayers.  !

new requirements were a reasonable As indicated above, when the Finally, at least in situations where non. '

]. I exercise of Commission authority was Commission's emergency planning ~ J - cooperation in offsite emergency

, premised in part on the Commission's requirements were upgraded in August - planning is motivated by safety issues, j belief that State and local governments of 1980, the Commission believed that vesting State or local governments with '

l i would cooperate in the development all affected State and local governments . defacto veto authority over full. power l i I and implementation of offsite plans, would contin'u eio cooperate in operation is inconsistent with the-nus. in response to commen'ts that the emergency planning throughout the life- fundamental thrust of the Atomic Energy proposed new emergericy planning rules of the license.In b rulemaking Act whereby b Comadesion is given would vest State and local governments initiated by today's notice, the ... exclusive defare authority to license

< with defacto veto subrity over plant Commission is considering explicitly nuclear power plants and to impose j j operation, the Commission responded what regulatory approach it should . , radiological safety requirements for that "[tjhe Commission believes, based follow in the future in the event that, their construction and operation.-

, on the record created by the public contrary to the expectation in August of , m.second option under

' workshops, that State and local officials 1980, a State or local government . .- consideration by this rulemaking would as partners in this undertaking will declines to cooperate in the .

be an amendment to the Commission's d

endeavor to provide fully for public - development or implementation of an. emergency planning regulations which protection." . offsite emergency plan for whatever would provide more Sexibility than do

! In the years since 1980, ofrette .

• reason end as a result, the Commission the existing regulations to deal with the emergency plans have been completed may have difficulty finding, as required circumstance of non<:ooperethin.W t and successfuDy exercised at nearly , by existiryg regulations, that there is essence of this option would be a new j j every nuclear power plant site in the - reasonable assurance that adequate subsection (e) of to CFR 50.47 to read as

, United States. In few cases, however, protective measures can and willbe follows:

State orlocal governments have not taken in the event of a radiological (e) no Comuninion may inue a fu!! power developed an offsite emerge plan of emergency, operatins licenu for a facility their own or cooperated with t e utlity Any consideration of possible changes notwithstanding non. compliance with other

m developing one.This lack of in the Cornmission's emergency planning requiremente of this seceos and 10 CFR part

cooperation has even occurred afte* the requirements must recognize one centrol 50. Appendix Ile non-comp!!ance adees 4 efrected plant was substantially and salient fact

ht such a change abstantially hos e lack of perucipetion in

! constructed. would not alter the Commission's the development or implementation af offsite i Existing regulations do not on t)eir paramount obligation to assure public emergency planning by a State or beat i face require operation license denial heelth and safety.For each license sovemment, and if the applicant

! where State or local governments do not application, the Commission would demonstrates se the e *e i cooperate in emergency planning. remain obl$ated to determine ht bre senefacuon that:(1Ine non-m " i i Itather, they permit the Comunission to is reasonable assurance that the pubbe could be remedied, er adequately Issue en operating license despite - health and safety will be adequately compenuted for, by senseeable Sta i deficiencies in emergency planning. protected.lf the Coaunission, for 4 sovernmental cooperation; (a) applicant has '

j provided the deficiendes are "not whatever reason, cannot find that the mede a seed faith and sestained esat to significant." or that there are " adequate statutory standard has been met. then obteln the cooperation of the necessary i 1 interim compensating actions" (see to the license cannot be issued. 8'*"""'*; DI *Pplicaem aNelu mesue) :

CFR 50.47(cM1) and (2)). However, the plan includes eSecuve seemu to i . in particular, b Commission is 888p*8Mie IW the lack of #8pention whic!

! existing regulations also provide as a considering two options.h first option

• i '

basic standard in all cases that "no would be to leave the existig ' e and in c unta operating license . . .: will be issued regulations unchanged.This option gig,j, 3i,,, ,, 3,,,g ,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,,,,,3

[for a power reactor] unless a finding is provides one method to assure that

• emergency and H) opplicant hee provided

, made that there is reasonable assurance offsiteemergency plans willbe - copies of the oNeste plan to aus evanments i that adequate protective measure can adequate. However, this option depends which would have otherwise parecipated in j $ and willDe taken.In the event of a i on the continued cooperation of State its preparation er implemenesten and hw 4

i radiological emergeng."144g Mond and local governments in emergency ..... assered them thatit stands ready to -

l 1 Uphtirqr Compapy(Shes$na Medent r planalas andUt N option - eesperets shoold they aheage their peeleen.

+

i

, 2 , .

k ,

%. p .p%ge e., ,

! -- - __ .__ _ _