ML20210N753
| ML20210N753 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1987 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Frye J, Kline J, Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2493 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8702130203 | |
| Download: ML20210N753 (29) | |
Text
SfN Gl.ATED CORRESPONDE.NCR gog%
UNITED STATES 8"'
Yg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
9 WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 g
4~
FEB 101987
'87 FEB 12 All :28 Morton B. Margulies, Chairman John H. Frye III, Chairmany p c Administrative Judge Administrative Judge D CC:n.,, ; 2
- a,y Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Doar' %O d
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Dr. Oscar H. Paris Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Frederick J. Shon Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nucicar Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)
Dear Administrative Judges:
For the information of the parties, the NRC Staff transmits herewith a memorandum (SECY-87-35) of February 6.1987 from the NRC General Counsel and the NRC Executive Director for Operations proposing consideration of an Emergency Planning rule change to deal with lack of Governmental cooperation in offsite emergency planning.
Sincerely, Edwin J.
,eis Deputy ssistant General Counsel
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: Service List l
l 8702130203 870210 l
gDR ADoca 0s00o322 l
3 561 l
s, L E
y s a g C o'<,,
ga "a*
I
's l
5.,...../
RULEMAKING ISSUE February 6, 1987 (Notation Vote)
SECY-87-35 For:
The Commissioners Frcm:
William C. Parler General Counsel Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
CONSIDERATION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE CHANGES TO DEAL WITH LACK 0F GOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION IN OFFSITE ENERGENCY PLANNING Discussion:
Attached (Enclosure A) is a draft proposed rule change which would, in limited circumstances, allow full pcwer nuclear plant operation to begin when there is a lack of State or local goverr. ment cooperation in offsite emergency planning. The heart of the proposal is the following:
The Commission may issue a full-pcwer operating license for a facility notwith-standing non-compliance with other [NRC emergency planning] requirements... if ncn-ccmpliance arises substantially from a lack of participation in the development or imple-mentation of offsite emergency planning by a State or local government, and if the applicant demonstrates to the Ccmmission's satisfaction that:
(1) the non-ccmpliance cculd be remedied, or adequately concensated for, by reasonable State or local govern-mental cooperation; (2) applicant has made a good faith and sustained effort to obtain t;.e cooperation of the necessary governments; (3) applicant's offsite emergency plan includes all effective measures to compensate CONTACTS:
Martin G. Malsch, OGC, 41465 William M. Shields, OGC, 28693 Ii7oZ(3o /%/
.w 2
for the lack of cooperation which are reason-able and feasible under the circumstances and which take into account a possible State or local response to an actual emergency; and (4) applicant has provided copies of the offsite plan to all governments which would have otherwise participated in its prepara-tion or implementation and has assured them that it stands ready to cooperate should they change their position.
The draft notice is self-explanatory, but several things bear special emphasis:
l.
The rule change would have a minimal impact on safety.
2.
The rule change is based on regulatory policy considerations about the proper role of emergency planning in NRC safety licensing, rather than new scientific safety data relevant to plant risk or emergency planning risk reductions.
3.
The rulemaking poses the important safety policy issue whether reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures will be taken in the event of an accident is always an essential part of the statutory finding that full power licensing will not be inimical to the public health and safety.
4 The rule approach in this paper represents a minimum change to the regulations focused narrowly on the problem of non-cooperation.
5.
FEMA's views regarding the proposal will be fonr. ally requested during the comment period on the proposed rule.
FEMA has been informally consulted during the preparation of this notice.
This paper and rulemaking were drafted by OGC. GGC sees no legal obstacle to the proposed rule, but would i
defer to others on the policy questions involved.
The EDO recognizes that the proposal will be highly controversial but nevertheless endorses the proposal from a policy standpoint.
l L
Reccmmendations:
1.
Approve publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking.
2.
Consider this paper at an cpen Comission meeting.
3.
Note:
a.
The Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Comittee, the'Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on the Environment and Nblic Works, the Subcomittee on Energy, Nuclear Prolifera, tion and Federal Services of the Senate Comittee on Government Affairs, and the Subconsnittee on Energy and Power of the House Interstate and Foreign Comerce Committee will be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure B as scon as this paper is scheduled for a Comission meeting. They will also be
~
informed if the Comission agrees to publish the proposal in the Federal Register.
b.
If approved, this notice of proposed rulemaking would be published in the Federal Register allowing 60 days for public comment, c.
A draft public announcement similar to Encicsure C will be issued by the Office of Public Affairs.
- d. In light of Comissioner Asselstine's offer of the proposed rule to Congress, we recommend that this paper be provided to Congress and also placed in the PDR.
f, OO
?rNe
)f')
General Counsel 2/ /
- f. /
U/
f.
,/f f,&
Victor Stello, r.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
FR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B.
Regulatory Analysis C.
Environmental Assessinent
4-Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directiv to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, February 20,"
1987 Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, February 13, 1987, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO OGC (MNBB)
a Attachment A
[7590-01]
MUIAP. MTAKEY CC?ilSSICT!
10 CFR Part 50 Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants hhere State and/or Local Goverrments Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Energency Planning A NCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Cor: mission.
ACTICE:
Proposed rule.
SIM%RY: The Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission is considering whether to amend its rules regarding offsite emergency planning at nuclear power plant sites.
The anentant being considered would, in limited circunstances, allow the issuance of a full-power operating license even if the utility cannot meet all of NBC's current emergency planning requirenents when, contrary to the Ommission's expectations idien its energency planning rules were issued, there is a lack of cooperation by State and/or local goverrments in the developnent or impletentation of offsite energency plans. The Cccmission helieves that adequate assurance of public health and safety can be achieved with this approach.
l DATES:
Car: ment period expires (60 days fran the date of issuance of the proposed rule). Cccments received after this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but assurance of consideration can be given only for ccmnents filed on or before this date.
AIDRESSES: Suhnit written ecmnents to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission, Washington, D.C. 20555, ATHT: Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver cmments to: Roan 1121,1717 H Street, N.tl., Washington, D.C.,
between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays. Exanine emments received at: NRC Public Docunent Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
- [7590-01]
l l
FG IUm!ER llER%TICN CENIACT: Williarn ?!. Shields, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ca mission, Washington, D.C.
Telephone:
l (301) 492-8693.
l SLTPIE1ENTARY INKERTICN:
In August of 1980, the Ca mission promulgated revised regulations governing emergency planning and preparedness at nuclear power plant sites (see 10 Cm 50.47 and 10 Cm Part 50, Appendix E). The need for improvanents had been denonstrated by the inadequate offsite response to the accident at the three Mile Island plant in March of 1979. Among other things, these regulations envisioned the developnent of offsite energency plans with the cooperation of State and local goverrrnent in the vicinity of the reactor site.
The Cmmission's judgnent that the new requirements were a reasonable exercise of Cmmission authority was prunised in part cst the Ccrrmission's belief that State and local goverrments would cooperate in the developnent and irrplanentation of offsite plans. Thus, in response to cmments that the proposed new energency planning rules would vest State and local governments with de facto veto authority over plant operation, the Cmmission responded that "[t]he Ca mission believes, based on the record created by the public workshops, that State and local officials as partners in this undertakirg will endeavor to provide fully for public protection."
In the years since 1980, offsite emergency plans have been empleted and successfully exercised at nearly every nuclear power plant site in the United l
l States.
In a few cases, however, State or local goverrments have not developed an offsite emergency plan of their own or cooperated with the
3-
[7590-01 T utility in developing one. His lack of cooperation has even occurred after the affected plant was substantially constructed.
Existing regulations do not on their face require operating license dental where State or local goverrinents do not cooperate in energency planning. Rather, they pennit the Cannission to issue an operating license despite deficiencies in emergency planning, provided the deficiencies are "not significant," or if there are " adequate interim carpensating actions" (see 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) and (2)). lowever, the existing regulations also provide as a basic standard in all cases that "no operating license... will be issued
[for a power reactor] unless a finding is made that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological anergency. Long Island Lighting Ccr:1oany (Shoreham Maclear Power Station), CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986), n e absence of State and local goverrraental cooperation makes it more difficult for utility applicants to i
danonstrate carpliance with the basic energency planning standard, specifically that part of the standard which requires reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures "will be taken." h is is especially onerous where a utility is powerless under applicable State or local law to itself icplanent all aspects of an offsite plan. n us, in actual practice, under the Comnission's ezisting rules State or local goverrrnents may possibly veto i
full-porer operation, even after the plant has been substantially cocpleted, by choosing not to cooperate.
As indicated above, when the Ccurmission's emergency planning recuirenents were upgraded in August of 1980, the Camission believed that all affected f
State and local goverrrnents would continue to cooperate in energency planntrc throughout the life of the license.
In the rulanaking initiated by today's i
=-wr---
..,,w
,,,,,y-
,,.,,y
,,n y,
y
,+y-
--.m,--
y,_,mw
--,,,,.--,e.,,,.--,,,-p,,,y,,.
,y-
-.g--y-gv.--
- I"590-01]
notice the Conmission is censidering explicitly what regulatory apprcach it should follow in the future in the event, contrary to the expectation in August of 1980, a State or local goverreent declines to cooperate in the development-or irzplanentation of an offsite stergency plan for whatever reason and, as a result, the Cccmission may have difficulty finding, as required by existing regulations, that.there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological energency.
In particular, the Conmission is considering two options. The first option would be to leave the existing regulations unchanged. This option provides one method to assure that offsite emergency plans will be adequate.
However, this option depends on the continued cooperation of State and local governments in energency planning and preparedness. The option has severe non-safety consequences where States and local Coverrments choose not to cooperate, especially after a plant has been substantially constructed.
Significant policy questions of equity and fairness are presented where a utility has substantially ecnpleted construction and ccnmitted substantial resources to a nuclear plant and then, af ter it is far too late realistically for the utility to reverse course, the State or local goverrment opposes the plant by non-cooperation in offsite energency planning. A forced abandorment of a canpleted nuclear plant for which bi!! ions of dollars have been invested also poses obvious serious financial consequences to the utility, ratepayers and taxpayers. Finally, at least in situations where non-cooperation in offsite emergencv planning is motivated by safety issues, vesting State or i
. [7590-01]
local goverrrnents with de facto veto authority over full-power operation is inconsistent with the fundamental thnist of the Atcznic Energy Act whereby the Cmmission is given exclusive de jure authority to license nuclear power plants and to impose radiological safety requirenents for their construction and operatfon.
The second option under consideration by this rulanaking would be an amencinent to the Cmrnission's ernergency planning regulations which would provide more flexibility than the existing regulations do to deal with the
- circtinstance of non-cooperation. The essence of this option would be a new subsection (e) of 10 CFR 50.47 to read as follows:
(e) 'Ihe Comnission rnay issue a. full power operating license for a facility notwithstanding non-empliance with other requirenents of this section _if nongmpliance arises 'substantially frczn a lack of participation in the develognent or*1cplementation of offsite energency plannintr by a State or 16 cal goverranent, and if the applicant danonstrates to the Comnicsion's satisfaction that:
(1) the non-ccrrpliance could be renedied, or adequately empensated for, by reasonable State or local goverrrnental cooperation; (2) applicant has made a good faith and sustained effort to obtain the cooperation of the necessary goverrrnents; (3) applicant's offsite energency plan includes effective measures to ccurpensate for the lack of cooperation idlich are reasonable and achievable under the ciretrnstances and which take into account a likely State or local response to an actual emergency; and (4) applicant has provided copies of the offsite plan to all goverrrnents which would i
have otherwise participated in its preparation or inplementation and has assured them that it stands ready to cooperate should they change their positfon.
If this option were adopted, the Ccurmission expects that an adjudicatory record would need to be developed to substantiate a utility's claims that the preconditions for operation are fulfilled if any interested person or affected State or local goverrment claima, with reasonable specificity and basis, that they are not fulfilled. Sbreover, the Ccrrmission arphasizes that it would not be possible under this option to license a plant for full power operation
=
. [7590-01]
)
i unless the applicant demonstrates that adequate offsite energency planning is achievableand all other aspects of foregoing criteria are satisfied. Bis i
rulenaking is intended only to address non-cooperation by responsible State or local goverrrnents; it does not provide a remedy or excuse for other offsite energency planning problems.
ne additional flexibility provided by such a rule would obviously minimize the consequences from the lack of goverranental cooperation in the develop::ent or irrplanentation of offsite energency plans. De more icportant and difficult question is whether or to what extent these non-safety consequences should be. a matter of concern to the Camission in setting pre-licensing ernergency planning requirenents.
De Cmmission believes that the 1980 rule and the Camission's explanation of the basis and purpose for the 1980 rule in the rule prear:ble (45 FR 55402, August 19, 1980) reflect inconsistent concepts as to the proper place of offsite emergency planning and non-safety costs in the h?C safety licensing program. On the one hand, the Camnission stated that the new requirements, as well as proper siting and engineered safety features, were needed to protect public health and safety. Taken in isolation, these statenents can be read as evidencing a Ca mission decision that ernergenef planning and preparedness as provided in those revised rules were to be treated as measures essential to safe operation of nuclear facilities and therefore to be inposed rigorously without regard to equity or cost.
' [7590-01]
Ch the other hand, the Ccan11ssion rejected an option in the rulemaking that could have lead to autcrnatic plant shutdown if adequate plans were not filed because of comnenters' concerns about " unnecessarily harsh econcmic and social consequences to State and local governnents, utilities, and the public."
Operating plants were given very substantial grace periods to come into ccrrpliance before shutdown would be corisidered or ordered. These provisions are not consistent with the concept that emergency planning and preparedness are as inportant to safety as such engineered safeguards as reactor contairrnents or anergency core cooling systes. The Comnission does not ordinarily pennit any extended grace period for a large power reactor to operate without these safeguards, or allow a plant to operate for a significant period without these safeguards because of " harsh econcroic and social consequences." Rather, these provisions reflect a different concept -- that adequate ernergency planning and preparedness are needed and inportant, but that they represent an additional level of public protection that ccur.es into play only after all of the other safety requirements for proper plant design, quality construction, and careful, disciplined operation have been considerec',
and that therefore some regulatory flexibility is warranted and the costs associated with alternative approaches may be taken into account.
7he second more flexible energency planning concept or approach is also reflected in consistent and repeated Ccrimission pronouncements that the fundamental philosophy or approach of energency planning is to assure reasonable and achievable dose reduction should an accident occur. Q, M Island Lighting Carrpany (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), supra; Southern i
8-
[7590-01]
California Edison Capany (San Chofre), CLI-83-10,17 hTC 528, 533 (1983). We existing energency planning regulation does not require that plans achieve any pre-established minicun dose savings in the event of an accident. For exanple, approved emergency plans with full State and local governnental cooperation have highly variable evacuation time estimates ranging from several hours to over ten hours and the projected dose savings for such plans would vary dely.
Dus the regulation is inherently variable in effect and there are no bright-line, mandatory mininun projected dose savings or evacuation time limits which could be viewed as perfonnance standards for emergency plans in the existing regulation. Moreover, the dose savings achieved by inplementation of an anergency plan under adverse conditions, e.g. during or to1 lowing heavy snow, could be substantially less than under perfect conditions. Bis variability is consistent with a concept or approach to emergency planning and preparedness that is flexible rather than rigid.
In the Cocmission's view, the narrow circunstance of non-cooperation by a State or local governnent in energency planning and preparedness addressed by this rule requires the Camnission to resolve, for the future, which of the tv.c underlying er.ergency planning approaches it should follow: a relatively i
inflexible one, that will require adequate plannin(, and preparedness with little or no concern for fairness or cost; or a more flexible one that focuses on what kind of accident mitigation (dose reduction to the public in the event of an accident) can be reasonably and feasibly accenplished, considering all of the circunstances.
If sound safety regulation requires the fonner, then no rule change is warranted.
If the latter, then a change would be in order for, if the fundamental philosophy or approach of emergency planning is reasonable
]
,,,----r
,. - - -, -,,,,, - - + - - - - - - -
--.n.-------
. ["590-01) and achievable dose reduction, this may properly be understcod in the sense of what is reasonable and achievable for the utility to accmplish under all of the ciretmstances, including matters which are ecnpletely beyond the utility's control.
In the one licensing case to date in which this matter of basic energency planning philosophy or approach has been considered, the Conmission has taken the view that under the existing regulattens an adequate plan must achieve dose reducticns in the event of an accident that are generally conparable with what might be acecr:plished with goverrrnental cooperation, g Island Lighting Cmpan'f, supra. But, as the'above discussion makes clear, another regulatory approach is possible which is set out with option 2, and which focuses on what is prudent and achievable dose reduction taking into account lack of goverrmental cooperation. As noted earlier, the standards in our e::isting regulations conter: plated goverrnental cooperation in offsite emergency planning and preparedness.
The types of measures, in addition to those norr: ally provided by the licensee, to empensate for the lack of cooperaticn in planning by state and local goverrrnents would include:
l l
(1) added plans and procedures detailing empensating measures;
(
(2) added personnel to accmpany and advise state and local officials in an actual ernergency; L..
.e : s
=,
,i g'
'* g
.g 1 7590-61]
,J (3)- facilities and equipnent including vehicles, radios, telephone and
/
radiation monitors as required by the plan; J'
9 (4) special training for personnel _ inplanenting ccnpensating measures; 2'
(5) arrarpts including fonnalized agreenents and contracts for supporting services; (6) close ccmnunication with manbers of public in the EPZ to keep than infonned of the status and provisions for response; (7) providing periodic notification of state and local goverrment personnel of the details of the ccnpensatory measures included in the plan, the y
arrangements included for their involvanent in the event of a real 4
energency, and the availability of training; and (8) offsite exercises that denonstrate implementation of the plan to the extent feasible.
Cm ments are requested on these alternative approaches to emergency planning. 'Ihe rule changes in option 2 are not dependent in any way on new infonnation about nuclear plant accident source tenns, probabilistic risk assessnents, or scientific studies of the risk reduction potential of energency l
s q
. (7590-Ol]
.j;,
.,~
planning.* The option would be based on the consideration of what should be
. beds n
js the appropriate underlying philosophy or approach to emergency planning as 4-e a prelicensing regulatory requirement -- a consideration which is prce,ted by
- F v
the change in circumstances which have been experienced since the regulations were promulgated in 1980 - the phenomena not then expected of State and local govarn=ents refusing to cooperate in emergency planning.
The practical effects of Commission adoption of option two -- a rule change -- are difficult to estimate, but the Commission believes that the g i' level of public pro:ection associated with option two'would not be significantly different from that provided by the current regulations.
First.
if a plant began operation under the circumstances permitted by the proposed regulation change, and all administrative and judicial remedies available to plant opponents had been exhausted, it seems reasonable to expect that the governments involved more likely than not would change their position and t
cooperate in planning. The governments or others may dispute whether planning is adequate, but it would seem fairly indisputable that the adequacy of a plan e
with cooperation will be enhanced relative to a utility sponsored plan without it.
In these circumstances, the governments and the citizens they represent would have much to gain and nothing to lose from cooperation.
- If in the future nuclear plant designs are proposed which offer greater protection of the public health and safety than do current designs, then additional rulemaking may be appropriate which examines the need for emergency planning in consideration of the reduced overall risk to the public.
In this rulemaking, however, no assumptions are necessarily being made regarding possibly improved plant designs or operations since 1980 when the new emergency planning regulations were issued.
7,
. (7590-01]
Second, the Commission believes that State and local governments which have not cooperated in planning will carry out their traditional public health and safety roles and would therefore respond to an accident.
It is reasonable to expect that this response would follow a comprehensive utility plan.
Third, the likelihood that State and local governments would cooperate may be bolstered by Titla'III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, which requires States to establish State emergency response commissions. The planning and notification requirements enacted in that Act are based on the same philosophy adopted by the Commission in its own emergency planning regulations.
In Fact, EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program is compatible in many respects with the Commission's emergency response program, and EPA's Interim Guidance issued in November 1985
.h (revision 1) specifically cross-references Commission and TEMA guidance on radiological emergency response.
(It should be noted, however, that the Superfund amendments do not require that industrial facilities cease operation if a State refuses to establish the required State organization.)
Since the Superfund amendments require States to establish emergency response organizations, a change in posture regarding cooperation in emergency planning for nuclear power plants may entail only small tid; tic.: commitments of government resources.
Moreover, since it will have been established that adequate planning is achievable, and a utility plan will have been required which will include provisions for possible State and local cooperation in the event of an
. [7590-01]
accident, any interim period af ter cocmencenent of plant cperation during which non-cooperating goverrrnents may re-evaluate their position may be short. The time period is, moreover, largely under the control of the goverrments. Not only may the goverrrnents accelerate their efforts to develop an inproved plan once the plant is licensed, but should the option 2 nale change be adopted by the Ccnmission, it may be reasonable for State or local goverrments which oppose plant operation to develop adequate contingent energency plans that would only ccme into play should the plant be licensed over their objection.
Since an offsite plan developed without State or local cooperation is not likely to be fully exercised, it is necessary in conjunction with. option 2 to amend Section F of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, which currently requires that the offsite plan be fully exercised biennially.
De pendency of this proposal is not intended to affect any ongoing reviews or hearings of emergency planning issues under existing regulations, including 10 CFR 50.12.
De Ccranission is currently pursuing the feasibility of additional changes to energency planning requirements based on the source tenn and severe accident programs. De proposal cmde in this notice is not based on either of these programs.
BAO GIT MIALYSIS his amendnent does not inpose any new requirenents on production or utilization facilities; it only provides an alternative method to meet the l
1
1
. [7590-01]
Ctetr.ission's errargency planning regalations. De amencbent therefore is not a backfit under 10 CFR 50.109 and a backfit analysis is not required.
RECLTAIORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATIOT In accordance with the Regula' tory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Ca mission certifies that this rule will not have a significant ecor.anic inpact upon a substantial nunber of snall entities. The proposed rule applies only to nuclear power plant licensees which are electric utility cmpanies daninant in their service areas. R ese licensees are not "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and do not meet the snall business size standards set forth in Snall Business Adninistration regulations in 13 CFR Part 121.
LIST OF SGJECIS IN 10 CFR PART 50 Antitrust, Classified infonnation, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ikelear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirenents.
v
- ' (7590-01]
nVIPfN.EMI. ASSESS.ETT Mr FilOING OF 10 SICNIFICANT EVIPIN.ETAL IMPACT ne Comnission 11as detemined under the National Environnental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Conmission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the hunan environnent and therefore an envirorrnental inpact statement is not required. De Comnission has prepared, in support of this finding, an envirorrnental assessment v.hich is available for inspection and copying, for a fee, at the hTC Public Docunent Roan,1717 H Street, N.W.,
t.'ashington, D.C.
RKULOMY ANALYSIS ne Ccomission has prepared a regulatory analysis for this regulation.
His analysis further examines the costs and benefits of the proposed action and the alternatives considered by the Carmission. D e analysis is available for inspection and copying, for a fee, at the NRC Public recunent Roan,1717 P Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Atanic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Diergy Feorgani::ation Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the Cocmission is considering t.hether it should adopt the following amendnents to 10 CFR Part 50:
1
..-r,.-
_..r.,._~.__-_.,.,.,,_,,_.,..._.-,,.,_.,_,,,._,,.,mm..
..,....,.v.,,_
_---.-4,
.. (7590-01]
PART 50 - III.ESTIC LIC2' SING OF PfIIXXXICN AND UTILIZATICti FACILITIES 1.
'1he authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUIHRI'IY:
Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as ' amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242,1244,1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless othemise noted.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.57(d), 50.58, 50.91 and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2071, 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50.102 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat.
955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273), 9850.10 (a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));
il50.10 (b) and (c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S,C. 2201(f)); and II50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
2.
In 10 CFR Part 50, a new subsection (e) is added to Section 50.47 to read f-as follows:
(e) 'Ihe Cmmission may issue a full power operating license for a facility notwithstanding non-empliance with other requirements of this section and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E if non-empIf ance arises substantially from a lack of participation in the developnent or inplanentation of offsite emergency planning by a State or local governnent, and if the applicant denonstrates to the Ccrmission's satisfaction that:
(1) the non-empliance could be remedied, or adequately empensated for, by reasonable State or local goverrmental cooperation; (2) applicant has made a good faith and sustained effort to obtsin the cooperation of the necessary governnents; (3) applicant's offsite energency plan includes effective measures to cmpernte for the lack of cooperation which are reasonable and achievable under the circunstances and which take into account a likely State or local response to an actual emergency; and (4) applicant has provided copies of the offsite plan to all goverrrnents which would have otherwise participated in its preparation or inplanentation and has assured than that it stands ready to cooperate should they change their position.
- _.-,..~.
17 -
[7590-01]
3.
In 10 CPR Part 50, Appendix E, a new subsection 6 is added to Section F to read as foilows:
6.
Offsite governnental participation in an exercise is not required to the extent an applicant or licensee relies upon 10 CIR 50.47(e),
in such cases, an exercise with participation by the applicant or licensee and other cooperating goverrrnental entities shall be held.
Dated at Washington, D.C.,
this day of Fehruary,1937.
For the niclear Regulatory Ccamission Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Cccmission p.,
-.y-
7 M g
't e
l l
l l
PIG.TA7TTI NRLYSIS -- NEUDTS OF EERENCY PIMI.T RLTIS TO DEAL t.'Im IACK OF COOPEPATIQi BY CFF317E AUllGITIES Statenent of the Problen In August of 1980, the Ccamission published revised energency planning regulations which required, inter alia, that emergency plans be developed by licensees in cooperation 'vith State and local goverrrnents. Although the Ccnmission acknowl-edged the possibility that scrne goverrrnents might not cooperate, the Camission prenised the new rules on a coordinated effort among all parties.
This coordination has proved icpossible to achieve in a few isolated cases. The present rulanaking is intended to cover those cases not contanplated by the 1980 amenctnents.
Cbfective The objective of the proposed amendnents is to resolve, for future licensing, what offsite anergency planning approach should be adopted by the Ccrmission where State or local goverrrnents decline to cooperate in offsite sterCency planning or preparedness.
Alternative The alternative considered was to leave the existing rules intact. The pros and cons of this alternative, and of the proposed rule, are discussed in the proposed rule presmble published in the Federal Register.
Consecuences
.9C The anendments will probably not inpact on hTC resources l
l currently being used in licensinsr cases. There could be exten-sive litfration and review regarding whether the proposed rule's criteria are met but this would likely only substitute for review and litigation under current rules.
Other Goverrinent Agencies i
No inpact on other agency resources should result. The same considerations applicable to NRC resources apply here as well.
l g 2
Industry A positive financial effect mf ht be earlier operation of E
nuclear power plants already cocpleted but currently non-operational due to goverinnental non-cooperation. 7his earlier cperation should expensate for whatever e:cpenses a utility might incur to ecuply with the rule.
In any event, the rule only offers utilities an optfon.
Public At affected sites, the adoption of the proposed amendnents nay result in a less coordinated offsite energency plan as empared to sites where full coordination has been achieved.
Irmaet on Other Requirenents The proposed amendnents would not affect other NPC requirements.
Constraints No constraints have been identified that affect inplanentation of the proposed anendnents.
Decision P>itionale The Comnission's 1980 regulations were premised upon a cooperative effort among State and local governtnents and the licensee. Attenpts to license already-constructed facilities under these regulations in the face of non-cooperation by offsite authorities have resulted in protracted adninistrative litigation and non-operation of facilities which otherwise meet all of the Ccnmission's safety requirenents. A new approcch should be censidered to reduce such litigation and to obtain the highest possible level of energency planning given the non-cooperation of offsite authorities.
Inp!ementation The proposed rule will be published for 60 days emment.
The Ccrmission will then consider all comnents and publish a final rule on an expedited schedule. Because the rule would lessen reouf renents in affected cases, it could be made effective upon publication. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
f
- s
..~...
- e.
- as r
8 Attachment C t
i r
i s
I l
l I
l i
{,
- s, jp DVIIO?.EbTAL ASSES 23.T 1U1 IYDPOSED #,ERDTS
'IO BDGENCY PIMI51G FECLTATICES 'IO ITAL
?!!'DI bm-CL'CIERATICE EY OFFEI'!T AUDDtITIES Identification of the Proposed Action i
ne Ccmnission is considering amending its regulations regarding offsite energency planning at nuclear power plants to provide alternative licensing criteria when State and/or local governnents decline to cooperate in offsite emergency planning or preparedness.
he Need for the Proposed Action i-In August of 1980, the Camission published revised energency planning regulations which required, inter alia, that emergency plans be developed by 1icensees in cooperatton with State and local goverrrnents. De Conmission premised the new i
rules on a coordinated effort among all parties.
i nis coordination has proved irpossible to achieve in a few isolated cases. De present rulemaking is intended to cover those cases not contenplated by the 1980 amendnents.
Alternatives Considered De alternative considered was to leave the existing rules intact. ne costs and benefits of the proposed action and of the alternative are discussed in the proposed rule preamble published i
in the Federal Register.
Envircrrnental Impacts of the Proposed Action Adoption of the proposed rule could, in a few cases where State or local goverrrnents do not cooperate in emergency planning, result in nuclear plant operation with less than opticun governnental coordination in ernergency planning.
In this l
circunstance, the public in the vicinity of the few affected plants would be placed at a scrnewhat greater risk relative to what would be the case if either the governnents cooperated or the NRC adhered to its current emergency planning rules, he hTsC believes that the extent of this incremental risk is not signifi-
. cant, since:
(1) the like?ihood of an accident that would j
trigger the need for a fully coordinated emergency response is very small, given other NRC safety requiranants; and (2) even assuning a serious accident, an adequate and coordinated response may still be possible, given the fact that State and local goverrments will in fact respond in an actual emergency, and given the requirement in the proposed rule that app!! cant's offsite plan includes effective measures to ccrrpensate for a lack of cooperation which are reasonable and achievable and which take into account a possible State or local response to an actual L
-. - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C.,
s
- 2 energency. Although the amendnents could result in earlier operation of a few facilities than might he expected under existing rules, the envirorrnental inpacts associated with each such facility have already been considered in full envircrrwntal inpact statements.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
'Ihe Federal Dnergency ?!anagernent Agency (FH'A) has been infonnally consulted c'.uring the preparation of this notice.
FFA's views will be formally sought during the public comnent period.
Finding of No Significant Inpact Based upon the above assessment, the Carrmission has decided not to prepare an envirorrnental icpact statenent for the proposed amendnents.
It should be noted that a similar finding was raade by the Camission in promulgating the 1980 emergency planning amendnents. The current amendnents represent a limited modification of those rules.
I
-