ML20210P958
| ML20210P958 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/06/1984 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210P919 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-653 NUDOCS 8605130556 | |
| Download: ML20210P958 (3) | |
Text
ACTION - Minogue
/g. neg'o,,
UNITED STATES Cvs: Dircks NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Roe n
- E W ASHIN GT ON. D.C. 20555 Rehm t
Stello
*o December 6, 1984 DeYoung Denton OFFICE OF THE Unningham SECRETARY ggggghjgg Norry Felton Phil ps.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director Besaw Shelton for Operations q
FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secre s
SUBJECT:
SECY-84-394 - PROPOSED p pNDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 50, SECTIOlt 50.47 AND APPENDIX E: CONSIDERATION OF EARTHQUAKES IN THE CONTEXT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS This is to advise you that the Commission (with Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Roberts, Bernthal, and Zech agreeing) has approved the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 as modified in the attached copy of the Federal Register Notice.
The following statement should also be added to the draft FRN:
"The Commission is also considering whether to include in this rulemaking tornadoes and other low-frequency natural events.
In that possible case, offsite emergency response plans submitted to satisfy the applicable standards of 10 CFR 550.47 and Appendix E would not need to specifically consider the impact on emergency response capability of earthquakes, i
tornadoes or any similar low-probability naturally
)
occurring phenomena which are presumed to occur proximate in time with an accidental release of radioactive material from a licensed facility.
Comments on this possible alternative are requested."
Commissioner Asselstine disapproved the proposed rule and provided separate comments (attached), which should be included in the Federal Register Notice at the end of the Supplementary Information and prior to the " Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact."
u........ a dy8g6e60424 fi7..f.ilik-g4
.f. ',;.U.'
PDR I
i
2 You should revise the Federal Register Notice as indicated, making the editorial changes necessary for consistency and return it for signature and publication in the Federal Register.
QJteBe) (SECY SUSPENSE:
ASAP) cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Cec issioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC OPE t
B l
I
?
i 4
i l
9
?
vemaxe
~
SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISIONER ASSELSTINE It should be obvious that emergency planning is a site-specific exercise which is not amenable to a generic rulemaking such as that proposed by the Comission. In carrying out their emergency planning responsibilities, both the NRC staff and FEIM have recognized this.
When they consider whether the emergency plan for a particular site is flexible enough to envelope all eventualities, they consider the effects I
of whatever natural phenomena are most likely to disrupt emergency planning at that site. Thus, they have considered snow in New England, hurricanes in Florida, tornados in the Midwest, and earthquakes in California.
The Comission now tells us, however, that the experts were wrong and that earthquakes are somehow so different from other natural phenomena 1
that they need not be considered at all, even in areas of high seismic risk. I examined the basis for the Commission's conclusion in my separate views on CLI-84-12, the Diablo Canyon order, so I will not repeat here my reasons for disagreeing with the Comission's conclusion.
Suffice it to say that I do not believe that there is any reasonable basis for a rule which would treat earthquakes differently from other natural phenomena for purposes of emergency planning.
In an attempt to counter my criticism of their course of action in
]
the Diablo Canyon case, the Comission has just recently decided to request coment on a possible alternative rule which would also exclude from emergency planning " tornados and other low-frequency natural events." I do not believe that such a rule would be in the public interest. While hurricanes, tornados, and earthquakes may occur relatively infrecuently, should they cause or occur coincident with an accident or an emergency at a nuclear plant they could significantly disrupt emergency response capabilities. The staff's solution to this problem has been to require licensees to consider what kinds of effects these natural phenomena cause and to determine whether their emergency plans are flexible enough to deal with those effects. This has hardly been an onerous burden. Thus, with a minimal expenditure of resources, the licensees can prepare for what could be a serious emergency planning problem.
When I agreed to the publication of a rule I did so with the hope that the Comission intended to carefully and objectively examine the issue of whether and to what extent the complicating effects of earthquakes ought to be considered in emergency planning.
I also hoped that the infonnation gathered in the rulemaking would convince the Comission that a rule excluding altogether the consideration of earthquakes was not a wise thing to do. I find, however, that that was a forlorn hope. The Comission is instead intent merely on codifying its Diablo Canyon decision, and is going through with rulemaking procedures only so that it can say that it is allowing coment on the issue, no matter how meaningless that opportunity for coment turns out to be.
I will not, therefore, agree to the publication of a rule with which I disagree when the rulemaking procedures are not being used as they were intended, to meaningfully gather information to be factored into the rulemaking decision, but instead are being used solely to circumvent the hearing process in a particular licensing proceeding.
J