ML20210G300
| ML20210G300 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1987 |
| From: | Sniezek J Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702110256 | |
| Download: ML20210G300 (8) | |
Text
{-
JAN 2 91987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
James H. Sniezek, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 107 The Conunittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Tuesday, January 70, 1987, from 3 5 p.m.
A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
W. Olmstead (0GC) presented for CRGR review, " Emergency Planning Rule Changes to Deal with lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning."
(Category 2 item.) This matter is discussed in Enclosure 2. contains predecisional information and, therefore, will not be released to the Public Document Room until the NRC has considered (in a public forum) or decided the matter addressed by the information.
In accordance with the ED0's July 18, 1983, directive concerning " Feedback and Closure on CRGR Reviews," a written response is required from the cognizant office to report agreement or disagreement with CRGR recommendations in these minutes. The response, which is required within 5 working days after receipt of these, meeting minutes, is to be forwarded to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with the CRGR recommendations, to the EDO for decisionmaking.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Walt Schwink (492-8639).
Original signed by James li. Sniezek.g l
James H. Sniezek, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
JSniezek JRoe cc: Commission (5)
JZerbe PRabideau SECY JClifford GZwetzig Office Directors FHebdon WLittle Regional Administrators RErickson MLesar CPGR Members ROGR Staff PEDROGR cf W. Parler
-PDR (NRG/CPGP) Central File W. Olmstead BZalcman JNorberg 8702110256 870129 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR gFC h MEETING 107 PDR (OFC :ROG
- R
- 0EDROGR, g
_f._____:_
NAME :
wink
- J r
- JS k
DATE :1/21/87
- 1/7) /87
- 1/
/87 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
LIST OF ATTENDEES CRGR MEETING NO. 107 January 20, 1987 CRGR MEMBERS J.H. Sniezek D.F. Ross R.Burnett(forR.E.Cunningham)
R. Bernero R. Starostecki J. Heltemas J. Scinto OTHERS W. Schwink J. Zerbe B. Shields J. Conran M. Taylor J. McKinley C. Ader B. Jones S. Burns J. Clifford E. Jordan S. Treby S. Schwartz D. Mathews W. Olmstead m
1 i
2 :.
t-to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No.107 CRGR Review of Proposed Rule Changes to Deal with the lack of Governmental Cooperation in Offsite Emergency Planning i
W. Olmstead (0GC) presented for CRGR review proposed changes to NRC's emergency planning regulations that would add:
(1)anewsubsection(e)to10CFR50.47 and (2) a new subsection (6) to Section F of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.
The changes, which are directed toward nuclear power plants that have not received a full-power operating license, provide an alternative method to meet the NRC's emergency planning regulations. These regulations would continue to require that no nuclear power plant operating. license will be issued unless there is a finding by the Commission that there is reasonable assurance that adqeuate pro-tective measures can and will be taken to protect public health and safety in the unlikely event of a nuclear power plant radiological emergency. Consistent with the Commission's defense in depth philosophy, such protective measures are considered mitigative in nature and are in addition to the NRC's requirements for redundant and diverse preventive /migitative measures in the design, con-struction and operation of a nuclear power plant to protect public health and safety. The applicant for a license must satisfy the Commission that there is adequate protection of public health and safety. As provided for in the Atomic Energy Act and intended by the Commission's 1980 issuance of revised emergency planning regulations, only the Commission is empowered to grant or deny a license based on its finding that there is or is not reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency.
.rA_
l Q
p_
s b
The proposed changes to NRC's emergency planning regulations are considered necessary to prevent a few state and local governments from using these regu-lations to defacto deny an NRC license for nuclear power plant operation even though NRC believes that there is adequate protection of public health and safety to warrant granting the NRC license. Contrary to the Comission's ex-pectations, a few state and/or local governments have refused to participate in emergency planning and thereby prevented applicants for NRC license from meet-ing NRC's operating license regulations calling for state and local participa-tion. Consequently, although the Comission may be satisfied that there is adequate protection of public health and safety, an operating license could not be granted because NRC's requirements, which embrace state and local government participation, have not been met. Such action by these few state and local governments is contrary to the unilatera.1 authority (to grant or deny an NRC operating license) legislated to the Comission by the Atomic Energy Act and intended to be exercised by the Comission through its regulations. The pro-posed changes to the regulations would prevent such defacto dental of an NRC operating license.
The staff noted that the proposed changes to the regulations are based on the following assumptions:
1.
While a nuclear power plant emergency is unlikely, emergency planning is intended to provide additional protection of public health and safety and, therefore, is consistent with the Comission's defense in depth philo-sophy. Where granting of an NRC operating license is under consideration, only NRC is empowered to grant or deny such a license based on a finding of whether or not there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective l
L;.L measures can and will be taken to protect public health and safety in the unlikely event of a nuclear power plant radiological emergency.
2.
State and local government participation in emergency planning is prefer-red by the NRC. However, when these governments refuse to participate despite sincere efforts to gain their participation, a site-unique emer-gency plan could still be acceptable to the NRC. Such a plan would have to convince the Commission that, while state and local governments have not participated in the emergency planning, there still is reasonable assurance that adequate protective reasures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
Staff attending the meeting noted that, in a current instance, such a site-specific emergency plan appears to be potentially acceptable to the. NRC staff. This plan includes mea-sures to compensate for the lack of state and local government participa-tion in emergency planning. The plan assumes that even though state and local governments refuse to participate in emergency planning, realisti-cally, they will participate appropriately in an actual radiological emergency to protect public health and safety. Furthermore, these govern-ments have been given a copy,f the plan for their consideration regarding an adequate emergency response to protect public health and safety. In i
essence, this demonstrates the feasibility of an alternative method of meeting portions of the NRC's emergency planning regulations.
I l
3.
The NRC's licensing role should continue to be assuring that public health and safety is adequately protected. Relative to this role, the Comission's 1980 emergency planning regulations were premised upon a cooperative effort among state and local governments. However, even l
_ m _.
s.
f 4-though the Comission detemines that there is adequate protection of public health and safety, attempts to license already constructed multi-billion dollar nuclear power plants under NRC's purview in the face of non-cooperation by a few of these governments have resulted in protracted administrative litigation and non-operation of the plants. For this rea-son, a new NRC regulatory approach should be taken to continue to assure that public health and safety is adequately protected and to reduce such protracted litigation. An alternative method for meeting NRC's emergency planning regulations seems feasible and would serve this purpose.
4.
The proposal has been infomally discussed with FEMA. To date, no con-cerns have been identified.
5.
The' proposal will be issued for public coment on the proposed changes to NRC's regulations and the new regulatory approach which they adopt.
Further, there is to be an open Commission meeting on the proposal after public coment to air views concerning the proposal.
6.
Implementation of the proposal will have little or no impact on public health and safety; however, a reduction in the cost to the public, utility, end government for licensing a nuclear power plant is expected.
CRGR's review of the proposal resulted in the Comittee recomending that the proposal be approved by the EDO after modification to address the following:
1.
The proposal thoroughly articulates the legal rationale for the rulemaking proposal. The safety rationale, which is most important, also needs to be
i '
i articulated in the proposal. Staff attending the meeting were convinced that the proposed changes to NRC's emergency planning regulations would have little if any 1mpact on public health and safety, while the cost and time for licensing a plant could be reduced. This safety rationale should be articulated in the proposal and be the hinge pin upon which the pro-posal is based. Further, the staff should consider inviting specific coment on its technical rationale.
2.
There should be a reexamination of MRC's policy, regulations, guidance and licensing criteria concerning emergency planning / response to identify any accompanying changes necessary to implement the proposal (e.g., it appears that other changes may be needed in Appendix E). Such changes should be identified generically in the proposal. These accompanying changes should be articulated in detail in the final version of the rulemaking package.
3.
The Commission Paper should report that preliminary discussion of the proposal with FEMA has resulted in no concerns being identified to date.
4.
There should be a tempering of the discussion in the proposal (page 71 that attempts to draw artificial distinctions between one aspect of what the regulations require and other aspects treated as "really important."
5.
The relevance and applicability of the discussion in the proposal (page
- 10) concerning Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 needs clarification.
? !
6.
The language of the proposal discussing development of an emergency plan should be purged of wording such as: feasible, all, best-efforts and any other vague or all-inclusive wording.
7.
The proposal (e.g., Statement of Considerations) should indicate that the Comission is concurrently pursuing the feasibility of additional changes to emergency planning requirements based on its source tem and severe accident work. There was some discussion of the need for a comprehensive technically based assessment of the overall safety significance of emer-gency preparedness in connection with this rule at the final rulemaking stage. However, there was no specific Comittee recomendation on this aspect.
l l
l t
d'
. ~..
..