ML20237A171

Pages 55,402-55,415 to Vol 45,Number 162 of Fr Re NRC 10CFR50 & 70 Concerning Emergency Planning

ML20237A171
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	08/19/1980
From:	OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER
To:
References
CON-#487-5007 2.206, NUDOCS 8712140307
Download: ML20237A171 (14)

Text

- - - - - - - - _ - _ - _ _ __ " - ' - - - - - - - _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ , _ _ _

wmmm 5007., . l y. . ; j,.,;,

n' + r1 & !ML FAC k k Jh M "'~ L. d id Rules and Regulations __

Federal Register / Vol. 45 No.162 / Tuesday, August 19,1980 / -

pi.

55402 1n ' -

__ _a comments / suggestions 6 co;nnection The final regulation contains the with the proposed amendments within 1

NUCLEAR REGULATOkt following elements:

j 60 days after publication in the Federal J COMMISSION 1. In order to continue operations or to Register. Durib~g~lhis'c, omma}t J gIjir)  ; <'/

teceive an operating license an to CFR Parts 50 end 70 applicant / licensee will be required to January 1980) the Conidilssida conducted four regional workshops with

j submit its emergency plans, as well as State and local omcials, utility m

,9 Emergency Planning AoENCr, U*S. Nucleat Regalato State and local governmental emergency representatives, and the public to resp nse plans, to NRC.The NRC will then make a finding as to whether the discuss the feasibility of the varicus h portions of the proposed amendments, v C """issi "' state of onsite and offsite emergency their impact. and the procedures preparedness provides reasonable j" ACTION: Final rule. proposed for complying with their assurance that adequate protective provisions.*Its NRC used the surmAnr.The Nuclear Regulatory measures can and will be taken in the information from these workshops along .

Commission is upgrading its emergency event of a radiological emergency.The with the public commentletters to -

planning regulations in order to assure NRC will base its finding on a review of develop the final rule fmore than 200 that adequate protective measures can the Federel Emergency Management comment letters and the points made in and will be taken in the event of a Agency 7EMA) findings and two petitions for rulemaldng were also y radiological emergency. Nuclear power determinations as to whether State and plants and certain other licensed local emergency plans are adequate and considered). in addition to the above, on June 25, f acilities are required to submit their capable of being implemented and on 1980, the Commisalon was briefed by emergency plans, together with the annsment as to whether the three panels of public commenters on , ,

emergency respon:s plans of State and the licenseeNRC,s/ applicant's emergency plans the rule, one each comprised of

., i local govemments, to the Commission. are adequate and capable of being representatives from the industry, State -

The Commission and the Federal Energy implemented.These issues may be and local governments, and public Management Agency will review the raised in NRC operating Ifcense interest groups.Each panel raised plans for adequacy.The amendment hearings, but a FEMA finding will important concerns regarding the final cj also extends emergency planning constitute a rebuttable presumption on rule. On July 3,1980, the Commission ?y considerations to " Emergency Planning the question of adequacy, was briefed by its staff in response to Zones", and makes additional 2. Emergency planning considerations t!

these panels, including several 9 clarifications' will be extended to " Emergency modifications to the proposed final Planning Zones," rules. Finally, on July 23,1980[at the N EFFECTIVE DAT1t: November 3,1980.

3, Detailed emergency plan M Note.-The Nuclear Regulatory implementing proceudres of licensees /

final Commission consideration of these rules, the Commisslun was briefed by 1 Commlulon has submitted this rule to the applicants will be required to be .. J the General Counsel on the substance of Comptroller General for review of the reporting requirements in the rule. pursuant submitted to NRC for review, and

4. Requirements in to CFR Pcrt 50, conversations with Congressional staff M 4,

members who were involved with g

.a t h. e d$e'on wf[c$l e repo ng Appendix E are clarilled and upgraded. passage of the NRC Authorizauon Act p  :

requirements of the rule become effective for fiscal year 1980, Pub. L No.96-295.

tvudes a 45-day period, which the statute Background q attows for Comptroller General review (44 In June 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory The Ceneral Counsel advised the U.S.C. 3512(c)(2)). Ity were consistent with that Act.The ron runTHEn iNFORMATION CONTACT ** reconsideration of the role of emergency Commission has relied on all of the 9%

Mr. MichaelT. Jamgochian, Office of planning in ens' iring the continued above information in its consideration of M

Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear protection of the public health and these final rules.In addition, the b/

safety in areas around nuclear power Y Regulatory Commission. Washington, Commission directs that the transcripts D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-443-5900). facilities.The Commission began this reconsideration in recognition of the of these meetings shallbe patt of the ( j SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION* On administrative record in this rulemaking. M.r need for more effective emergency However, the transcripts have not been September 19,1979 and on December 19, 1979, the Commission published for planning and in response to the ThU reviewed for accuracy and, therefore, $

public comment (44 FR 54308 and 44 FR accident and to reports issued by are only an informal record of the WiE responsible offices of government and 75167) proposed amendments to its the NRC's Congressional oversight matters discuned. [. ^

emergency planning regulations for After evaluating all public comment production and utilization facilities- committees. .

On December 19,1979, the Nuclear letters received and all the information (<

>1 Extensive comments were received, all obtained during the workshops as well

, Regulatory Commission published in the as additional reports such as the W ,

of which were evaluated and considered Federal Register (44 FR 75107) proposed $

in developing the final rule.The Presidential Commission and the NRC N comments received and the staffs evaluation is contained in NUREGm4 amendments to to CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to Part 50 of its regulations.

SpecialInquiry Group Reports, t%

Commission has decided to publish the M i In addition, the NRC conducted fouf Publication of these final rule changes in final rule changes described below. 3 f RegionalWorkshops to solicit the Federal Register is not only related Description of Fina} Rule Changes y#

[

?

comments; these comments are available in NUREG/CP-0011 (April to the Deceml'er 19,1979 proposed rule changes but also incorporates proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 50 the The Commission has decided to adopt a version of the proposed rules similar h,4 1980).' and 70 (44 FR 54308) published on to alternative A described in Sections A'2J j ' Codes of Nt! REC documents are avstlable

• the Commisslan's Pubuc Document '

Room.171711 Septemb'er 19,1979. Interested persoru et invited to submit written were 50.47 and 50.54 in the Federal Regt<ter Notice dated December 19,1979 (44 FR h, 4 y ' 75167), as modified in light of comments.

ns fD e >$'

S NaseNrom'thYEvIr information on current price, may be obtained by m$nfPrt Washington D.C 2055s. Attenuon: Publicauons These rule: are consistent with the i%

Sales Manaser.

l writing the U Bu Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  %

f 8712140307 Y

h ADOCK890819 0a000293 l fDR PDR 5 q

l - -. Y:4

Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 43, No.182 / Tuesday, August 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55403 g

@g',:,j approach outlined by FEMA and NRC in applicant / licensee will be required to 6. Requirement for specialized training $yd

st

a Memorandum of Understanding (45 FR submit its emergency plans, as weU as (Section TV.F) for up.tesf ate plan i

5847, January 24,1980). No new State and local governmental emergency 7. Provisions .g i

,?

operating license will be granted unless response plana, to NRC.The NRC will maintenance (Section W.C) ,

Applicants for a construction permit 4 y the NRC can make a favorable finding then make a finding as to whether the that the integration o'onsite and offsite state of onsite and offsite emergency would be required to submit rnore y , ^

preparedness provides reasonable information as required in the 10 ' IQ 'l emergency planning provides Section II of Appendix E. Pg i reasonable asst.rance that adequate assurance that adequate protective protective measures can and will be measures can and will be taken in the Ratior_ ale for the Final Rules 5 taken in the event of a radiological event of a radiological emergency.

The Commission's final rules are 4-l-

emeryncy.!n the case of an operating The NRC will base its finding on a y ..

based on the significance of adequate reactor,ifit is determined that there are review of the FEMA findings and emergency planning and preparedness -p such deficiencies that a favorable NRC finding is not warranted and lf the determinations as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and to ensure adequate protect'on of the ^; ](. ..

Public health and safety. lt is clear, deficiencies are not corrected within 4 months of that determination, the capable of be!ng implemented and on the NRC assesstcent as to whether the based on the various official reports 4d Commission will determine applicant's/ licensee's emergency plans described in the proposed rules (44 FR 75189) and the public record compiled in

.g "3

.] -

expeditiously whether the reactor should be shut down or whether some are adequate and capable of being implemented. In any NRC licensing this rulemaking, that onsite and offsite emergency preparedness as weU as ch g

other enforcement action is appropriate, proceeding, a FEMA finding will pr per siting and engineered design L.g pursuant to procedures provided for in consitute a rebuttable presumption on features are needed to protect the health .y to CFR 2.200-2.200. In any case where the question of adequacy.Specifically: and safety of the public. As the- y the Commission believes that the pubtle a.Ano rating license will not be Commi o a ac d at j health, safety, or interest so requires, the issued un :s a favorable NRC overall g , , ,,

m plant will be required to shut down finding can be made, the protection provided by siting and immediately (10 CFR 2.202(f). see 5 b. After April t.1981, an operating engineered design features must be 9 .,

plant may be required to shut down if it U.S.C. 558(c]).

The standards that the NRC will use is determined that there are deficiencies fd rse of T'b~~ .l in making its determinations under these such that a favorable NRC findiss an accident.ne accident also showed rules are set forth in the final regulation. cannot be made or is no longer dearly that onsite conditions and .[I 'd Wherever possible. these standards may warranted and the deficiencies are not if th d blend with other emergency planning corrected within 4 months of that lt fe,[o"ffsite radiol ca ii4 procedures for nonnuclear emergencies determination. consequetices, will affect the way the d presently in existence.The standards 2. Emergency planning considerations various State and local entities react to E#>

ire a restatement of basic NRC and now must be extended to " Emergency protect the public from any dangers O joint NRC-FEMA guidance to licensees Planning Zones," and associated with the accident. In order to [F '

and to State and local governments. See 3. Detailed emergency planning discharge effectively its statutory 3A d,'

NUREG-0654; FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria implementing procedures of both responsibilities, the Commission must for Preparation and Evaluation of licensees and applicants for operatin8 know that proper means and procedures  !

W Radiological Emergency Response Plans licenses must be submitted to NRC for will be in place to assess the course of d1

>f and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear review. an accident and its potential severity, Power Plants for interim Use and In addition, the Commission is that NRC and other appropriate . h: '

Comment," (January 1980). In deciding revising to CFR Part 50. Appendix E. authorities and the public will be /P i I

whether to permit reactor operation in " Emergency Plans for Production and notified promptly, and that edequate s$'

Y.

• I the face of some deficiencies, the Utilization Facilities," in order to clarify, protective actions in response to actual Commission will examine among other expand, and upgrade the Commission's or anticipated conditions can and wi!! O I factors whether the deficiencies, are significant for the reactor in question.

emerbency plarming regulations-Sections of Appendix E that are be taken.

The Commission's organic statutes  ?[ I whether adequate interim compensatory expanded include:

1. Specification of" Emergency Action provide it with a unfque degree of discretion in the execution of agency hi d

actions have been or will be taken promptly, or whether other compelling Levels" (Sections N.B and C) functions. Siegelv. AEC,400 F.2d 778, .F (

reasons exist for reactor operation. In 2. Dissemination to the public of basic 783 (D.C. Cir.1968), see Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d 759,771

{Jyy

.Nc

)

i determining the sufficiency of " adequate emergency planning information interim compensatory actions" under (Section W.D) & n.47 (3d Cir.1979). "Both the Atomic lt[

this rule, the Commission will examine 3. Provisions for the State and local governmental authorities to have a Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reo%nization Act of1974 confer broad 4}p r; y . I State plans, local plans, and licensee j; plans to determine whether features of capability for rapid r,oufication of the equlatory functions on the Commission public during a seaous reactor and specifically authorize it to yy ,

one plan can compersate for deficiencies in anothec plan so that the emergency, with a design objecto,e of promulgate rules and regulations it [.y' -

level of protection for the public health comple'ing the initial notification within deems r-cessary to fulfillits m 15 minutes afternutification by the responsibilities under the Acts,42 U.S C q-and safety is adequate. This interpretation is consistent with the licensee (Section IV.D) l 2201(p)." Public Service Co. of New jq l

4. A licensee onsite technical support Hampshire v. NRC, 582 F.2d 77,82 (1st  !

• l provisions of the NRC Authorization Act Cir.), cert denied. 439 U.S 1046 (1978). C l

for fiscal year 1980, Pub. L 96-295. center and a licensee near site l The regulation contains the following emergency operations facility (Section Sec 42 U.S.C. 2133(a). As the Supreme 4 .

Court stated alroost 20 years ago, the, f. l three major changes from past practices: W.E)

Atomic Energy Act " clearly l

1. In order to continue operations or to recieve en operating license, an

5. Provisions for redundan*

communene systems (Section W.E) contemplates that t', .i Commission shall g' e

l Fc l

• l .

l 5 '

b ._ . . . . _ _ _ __

M 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations y Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August 55404 Commisalon's disposition to grant such by regulation set forth what the public proposed rule changes.The fullowing exemptions.

W d

safety requiremats are as a prerequisite major issues have been rrdsed 5.The in Commission,in the developing this comments received. #

to the issuance of any license or permit aspect of the proposed rule, must under the Act,"PowerReactor Issue A:NRC Review and Concurrence consider its own history.There was time [hw Development Co. v, International Union in State and LocolRadiologicalPlans when regulation was characterized by f

of ElectricalBodio Machine Workers. 1. FEMA is best suited to assess the the leaders of the agency by simple and 367 U.S. 396. 404 (1901). Finally, it is also adequacy of State and local radiological very appropriate expressions.

h

/A The clear that " Congress, when it enacted ernergency planning and preparedness process was to be " effective and efficient."The application of regulatory g (42 U.S.C. 2230) . . must have envisloned that licensing standards, and report any adverse findings to NRC for assessment of the licensing authority was to be " firm, but fair." Qu especially in the areas of health and Regardless of the outcome of the consequences of those findings. " concurrence" issue, the Commission safety regulation, would vary over time 2. The proposed rule falls to provide ..

as more was learned about the hazards objective standards for NRC must appreciate that alternative B is not fair. It is not effective regulation. M.

of generating nuc! car energy. Insofar as concurrence, reconcurrence, and C those standards became more Issue D: Public Education 7 demanding. Congress surely would have withdrawal of concurrence.

wanted the new standards,if the 3. In the absence of additional Only information required to inform e Commission deemed it appropriate, to statutory authority, the proposed rule the public about what to do in the event W apply to those nuclear facilities already frustrates Congressionalintent to preempt State and local government of a radiolo8 1cal emergency need be J i s licensed," Et. Pierce Utilities Authority Veto power over nuclear power plant disseminated.Thi a should be  ?

v. United States, 000 F.2d 986,990 (D.C. flexibility, in any particufar case, as to

{

operation. who will be ultimately responsible for Cir.1979), 4. Procedures and standards for disseminating such information.

W In response to and guided by the adjudication of emergency planning variouc reports and public comments, as disputes are not adequately specified inIssue El Lego/ Authority M iTp .

well ao its own determination on the -

significance of emergency preparedness, the proposed rule.

the Commission has therefore concluded 8u B:EmergencyP!cnm.og Zones

1. A few r.ommenters felt that NRC had no authority to premulgate a rule as y

5 that adequate emergency preparedness Ip l the one proposed. 4 is an ecsential aspect in the protection of the public health and safety.The

1. Regulatory basis for imposition of 2. Other comments were the nature tut NRC has statutory authority only y' .

the Emergencyplanning Zone concept ... ide the limits of the plant site.

Commission recognizes there is a should be expressly stated in the 3. Some commenters suggested that possibility that the operation of some regulation. ,

reactoro may be affected by this rule 2. Provisions regarding the plume NRC and FEMA should seek additional , i through inaction of State and local legislation to compel State and local  !

exposure pathway EPZ should provide a governments to have emergency plans, if governments or an inability to comply maximum planning distance of to miles. that is what is necessary, y

with these rules.The Commission believes that the potential restriction of 3. References to NUREG-0390 should be deleted to avoid disputes over its issue F: Schedule for Irnplementation N g

.e plant operation by State and local meaning in licensing proceedings. The schedule for implementing the officials is not significantly different in  %

kind or effect from the means already "## ^ "' O #A^ No proposed rule was considered to be available under existing law to prohibit U I unrealistic and in some cases in conflict with various State schedules already in reactor operation, such as zoning and 1. Neither attemative is necessary existence. A sampling of the comments @#

land.use laws, certification of public because the Cunmission has sufficient on the implementation schedule follows: 'if convenience and necessity, State financial and rate considerations (10 authority to order a plant shut down for 1.The 180 days in the schedule is an $

safety reasons and should be prepared CFR 50.33(I)), and Federal to exercise that authority only on a insufficient amount of time to accomnlish tasks of this magnitude: the

$y environmentallaws.The Commission case.by. case basis and when a 4 notes however, that such considerations particular situation warrants such generally relate to a one time decision Federal govemment does not work with such speed. States are bureaucracies M f.C action. also: there is no reason to assume they .

on siting. whereas this rule requires a 2. No case has been made by the can work faster. it took years of working periodic renewal of State and local Ccmmission for the need for automatic with States to get the plans that are ,b commitments to emergency shutdown, as would be required in f preparedness. Relative to applying this attemative D. and certainly no other presently concurred in. It is just insufficient time for new concurrences p

rule in actual practice, however, the NRC regulations exist tht would and review. Also, to get a job done M

M Commission need not shut down a require such action based on a concept facility entil all factors have been as amorphous as " concurrence in State within that tin e frame means a hurried E thoroughly examined. The Commission believes, based on the record create d by and local emergency plans."

job, rather than an acceptable and 3.The idea that the Commission might meaningful plan.

Db

2. The time provided is inadequate for the public work hops, that State and local officials an pas re in this grant an exemption to the rules that would permit continued operation States to acquire the hardware needed. Oia undertaking will endeavor to provide States must go out for competitive bids fully for public protection.

(under alternative B) has title lust as the Federal govemment does. Q' slgnificance, primarily because 10 CFR Between processing and accepting a bid fr 3 g g ,

Part 50.12(a) already permits the and actual delivery of equipment,it may The Commission appreciates the granting of exemptions, tske a year to get the hardware.The

?

4. The process and procedures for i-extensive public comments on this State budgets years ahesd: therefore,if obtaining such exemptions are not a State or local govemment needs more Important rule,In addition to the record defined, nor ;s there any polley of the workshops, the NRC has received money. it may have to go to the [N indication that would Indicate the over 200 comment letters on the rp p

1 l

p Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55405 _ h,1 e

d '?

legislature.%i:Is a time-consuming difficulties associated with such a 5.%e basis for efiective offsite i/

1 a public process that may not fit the requirement. response capabilities is a sound Federal schedule. emergency preparedness program.  ? J IssueI Emergency Action f.evels Federal support (funding and technical 9 t

3. NRC and FEMA could not review 70 ,

or more plans and provide concurrence Applicants, in cooperation with State as:Istance) for the development of State o by January 1,1981. The Federal and lecal govemmental authorities, and local offsite capabilities should be y government r: oves slowly.Commenters should be permitted the necessary incorporated into FEMA's preparedness i a 9

did not think that NRC and FEMA can flexil tility to develop emergency action program for all emergencies.

review all the plans within the time M ,

level criteria appropriate .I#### M ###NI for the facility

]1j d l frame scheduled.If the Federal in question, su ject to NRC approval. '

Inflexible NRC emergency action level %e States support Federal oversight government cannot neet its schedule.

why or how shedd the States 7 standards are not necessary, and guidance in the deve:opment of

4. Funding could not be appro offsite response capabilities. However, e by State and local governments efore I'#"#I#

$riatedN"l"8 many States feel the confusion and y ine deadline. it was suggested that the 1. Mandatory provision for training uncertainty in planning requirements followingnree Mile Island is not a h}

bi Commission use H. Rept. #96-413. local service personnel and local news k

0 " Emergency Planning U.S. Nuclear media persons is outside of NRC's proper environment in which to develop M f Power Plants: Nuclear Regulatory jurisdiction and is not necessary to effective capabilities nor does it serve ,]

Commission Oversight." for the time protect the put,lle health and safety. the best interests of their citizens.ne a frame rather than that in the proposed 2. Public participation in drills or development of e!!ective nuclear facility N j, Incident response capabliities will hl critiques thereof should not be required.

gi rule or use a sliding-scale time frame since States are at various stages of 3.%e provision regarding formal require close coordination and N g6lt completing thelt emergency plans. critiques should be clarified to mean the cooperation among responsible Federal $1 licensee is responsible for developing agencies. State government. and the h Issue C:Impoct o/PmposedRule and conducting such critiques. nuclear ladustry. An orderly and i{i ,

1 1.The proposed regulations were 4. Definitive performance criteria for evaluation of drills should be developed comprehensive approach to this eIfort makes it necessary that onsite dW considered by some commenters as unfair to utilities because it was felt by the licensee, subject to NRC res nsibilities be clearly associated M lhy -

they place the utilities in the po!1tical approval. wit NRC e d the nuclear industry M

j and financial role that EMA should be Issue K! Implement /ng Pmcedums while deferring offsite responsibilities to M State govemment with appropriate d

i assuming. NRC is seen as in effect giving State and local governments veto NRC review ofimplementing FEMA oversight and assistance. M).1 (i.

}q >

over the aperation of nuclear plants. It procedures is only necessary to apprise the NRC staff of the details of the plans In addition to these comments. two petitions for rulemaking were filed in N :a was questioned whether this was an intent of the rule.In addition,it was felt for use b the NRC during the course of reference to the proposed rule.%ese '

y r

that utilities, their customers, and their choreholders should not be penalized by an actua emergency. were treated as pubtle comments rather than petitions and were considered in b

6*

~

a shutdown (with a resulting financial Is#"# L Pandi#8 develop:ng the final rule.

N' 1. Nuclear facilities, although located %e Commission has placed the '

burden) because of alleged deficiencies O or lack of cooperation by State and local in one govemmental tax jurisdiction and planning objectives from NUREG-0654, x officials. taxed by that jurisdiction, affect other FEMA-REP-1. Criteria for Preparation i

4 2. It was suggested that NRC's Office jurisdictions that must lear immediate and Evaluation of Radiological b'

. of Inspection and Enforcement conduct and long-term planning costs without Emergency Response Plans and D l y

the reviews of the State and local having access to taxes from the facility, Preparedness in Support of Nuclear e' g .

2. As the radius of planning Power Plants for Interim Use and k a governmental emergency response plans Comment," January 1980,into the final i{' '

in order to ensure prompt, effective, and requirernents becomes greater, few consistent implementation of the facilities are the concem of a single regulations. Comments received proposed regulations, county. The planning radius often concerning NUREG-0654 were available [ l

3. One commenter noted that the encompasses county lines, State lines, in developing the final regulation.ne W i' k and in some instances,intemational Commission notes that the planning , I g public should be made aware of the issue of intermediate and long-term boundaries. objectives in NUREf 0654 were largely -

r Impacts of plant shutdowns. 3. As new regulations are generated to drawn from NUREG-ts/111 "Culde and I. Specifically, people should be informed oversee the nuclear industry and old Checklist for Development and Y of the possibility of " brownouts," cost ones expanded there is an immediate Evaluation of State e,nd Local ,

! need to address fixed nuclear facility Govemment Radiological Emergency increases to the consumer due to Response Plans in Support of Fixed securing alternative energy sources, and planning at alllevels of government, Nuclear Facilities," (December 1,1974) i the health and safety factors associated oeginning at the lowest and going to the ,

with those attema*1ve sources, highest. Alllevels of government need and Supplement 1 thereto dated March i accees to immediate additional fundo to 15,1977 which have 1,een in use for

, t some time. i) l g Issue H:Public Notification upgrade thelt response capability.

%e approximately 60 public comment y f'U 1. Ultimate responsibility for public notification of a radiological emergency

4. It is well understood that the consumer ultimately must pay the price letters rece!ved on NUREG-0654 were not critical of the proposed planning must be placed on State and local for planning. regardless of the levelin Y'

government at which costs are incurred. objectives.%e Commission also notes ,

b government.

e 2. The " fifteen minute" public It becomes a matter of how the that at the May 1,1980 ACRS meeting.

..l notification rule is without scientific consumer will be taxed, who will the AtomicIndustrialForum justification. falls to differentiate administer the tax receipts, and what is representative encouraged the use of the 7 between s.reas close in and further away the most effective manner in which to planning objectives from NUREG-0654

{J from the site, and ignores the technical address'.he problem. In the final regulations in order to O

}M. ,

. .y -

5 t S c

I l# $

,$.a 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations h, Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August ,,e 55406 pf and longer times to release significant G.q reduce ambiguity and provide specificity capability of implementationamountsofofStateactivityin many scenarios).  ;;?

to the final regulation.

Based on the above, the Commission and local plans, 4.To make decisions with regard to the overall state of emergency Guidance regarding the radionuclides to be considered in planning la set forth in d d

has decided to modify the proposed rule preparedness (i.e Integration" of NUREG-0398; EPA 520/1-78-016, the Basis for the Development of Planning g

changes in the areas discussed in licensee's emergency preparedness as r*

paragraphs I through X below, determined by the NRC and of the State and local Government M Radiological Emergency Response Plans State / local govemments as determined in Support of Light Water Nuclear dQ

1. FEMA /NRC Relationship by FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and $ ]

In issuing this rule. NRC recognizes the significant responsibilities assigned issuance of operating!! censes or Power Planf.s/ December 1978.

M4 shutdown d coersting reactors. IV.Rationnla for Alternatives Choses to FEMA. by Executive Order 12148 on in addition, PEMA has prepared a In a few areas of the proposed rufe, ffd July 15,1979, to coordinate the proposed rule regarding Review and the Commission identifled two y emergency planning functions of Approval of State Radiological alternatives that it was considering. g-executive agencies.In view of FEMA's Emergency Plans and Preparedness"(44 Many public comments were received new role, NRC agreed on September 11. FR 42342, dated June 24,1980). on these alternatives; based on due dg 19r9, that FEMA should henceforth chair Accor to the proposed FEMA rule, consideration of allcomments received y j the FederalInteragency Central Coordinating Committee for .

FEMA approve State and local emergency plans and ptsparedness, as well as the discussions presented during the workshops, the Commission g  !

Radiological Emergency Response where appropriate, based upon its has determined which of each pair of m Planning and Preparedness (FICCC). On findings and determinations with y

alternatives to retain in the final rule, ,w Decembtr 7,1979, the President issued a sespect to the adequacy of State a'nd in Sections 50.47 and 50.54 (s) and (t). g directive assigning FEMA lead lot.al plans and the capabilities of State the alternatives dealth with conditioning responsib!!1ty for offsite emergency and local governments Jo effectively the issuance of an operatinglicense or q .l preparedness around nuclear facilities, implement these plans and continued operation of a nuclear power g The NRC and FEMA immediately preparedness measures.These findings plant on the existence of State and local cpl initiated negotiations for a and determinations will be provided to government emergency response plans Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the NRC for use in its licensing orocess, b that lays out the agencies' roles and

• 8n Plannleg Zee Concept y 7, e ,twe ite atives A and B g

- in these sections was that, under re p ns b ities t a re og ized that the The Commission notes that the alternative A. the proposed rule would MOU, which became effective January regulatory basis for adoption of the require a determination by NRC on @d 14,1980, supersedes some as$ectsEmergency of Planning Zone (EPZ) concept lasuing a license or permitting continued ;4 g

previous agreements.Specifi ally,the is the Commission's decision to have aoperation of plants in those cases where conservative emergency planning policy MOU identifies FEMA responsibilities relevant State andlocal emergency [q with respect to emergency preparedness in addition to the conse vatism inherent response plans had not received NRC as they reIate to tIRC as the following: in the defense in-depth philosophy.This concurrence.Denialof alicense or policy was endorsed by the Commission shutdown of a reactor would not follow dh 1.To make findings and #

in a policy statement published on automatically in every case.Under M determinations as to whether State and October 23,1979 (44 FR 61123). At that alternative B, shutdown of the reactor local emergency plans are adequate.

2.To verify that State and local time the Commission stated that two would be required automatically if the [

emergency plans are espable of being .mergency Planning Zones (EPZs) appropriate State and local emergency {d,[

3j implemented (e g., adequacy and should be established around each light- response plans had not received NRC W water nuclear power plant. The EPZ for maintenance of procedures, training, airborne exposure has a retllus of about concurrence within tk prescribed time I resources, staffing levels and 10 miles; the EPZ for contaminated food periods unless an exemption is granted.

After consideration of the public N qualification. and equipment)-

3, To assume responsibility for and water has a radius of about 50 record and on the recommendation of its miles. Predetermined protective action staff, the Commission has cho9en a text emergency preparedness training of State and local officials.

4.To develop and issue an updated plans are needed for the EPZs The exact size and shape of each EPZ decided by emergency planning officials that will be for is similar Sections to, but less restrictive M@M 50.47 and 50.54 (r) and V

series of Interagency assignments that than, alternative A in the proposed rule. E after they consider the specific Rather than providing for the shutdown delineate respective agency capabilities and responsibilities and define conditions at each site.These distances are considered large enough to provide a of action and the reactor prescribing

{i; as the only enforcement specific pro-edures for coordination and response base that would support 4 -

direcion for emergency planning and preconditions for the shutdown remedy, jL activity outside the planning zone response- the final rule makes clear that for 4 Specifically, the NRC responsibilities should this ever be needed. emergency planning rules. like all other ,A 4 rge ey preparedness identified Ill. Position on Planning Basis for Small rules, reactor shutdown as outlined in 4 for

" Ught Water Reactors and Ft.St.Vrain the rule is but one of a number of

" .To 1

assess licensee emergency plans The Commission has concluded that possible enforcement actions and many [d i

for adequacy. the operators of smalllight water-cooled factors should be considered determining whether it is an appropriate in 2.To verify that licensee emergency power reactors (less than 250 MWt) andaction in a given case.This Commission @W plans are adequately implemented (e.g.. the Ft. St.Vrain gas cooled reactor may choice is consistent with most of the W

adequacy and maintenance of establish smaller planning zones which procedures, training, resources, sta ffing will be evaluated on a case-by case comments received from State and localw$

levels and qualifications. and basis.This conclusion to based on the

• su secuon v tar e discualon comrnina b

)

equipment).

3.To review the FEMA findings and lower potential hazard from these concurnnec Q

f acilities (lower radionuclides inventory determinations on the adequacy and lb et

t Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55407 -

l t

, ; governments and is consistent with the the licensee emerger.cy response plans. basis for cholce of notification  ?

l provisions of Section 100 of the NRC After these two determinations have capability requirements for offsite l j '

fiscalyear1980 Authorization Act. been made,NRC will make a finding in authorities and for the public.

l g Alternative B was seen by some of the the licensing process as to the overall Ec ergency plans must be developed e i

I commenters as potentially causing and integrated state of preparedness. that will have the flexibility to ensure

,; ) unnecessarily harsh economic and It was pointed out to the Commission response to a wide spectrum of 3

social consequences to State and local at the workshops and in public comment accidents.%is wide spectrum of i governments. utilities, and the public. letters that the term " concurrence" was potential accidents also reflects on the L

} State and local governments that are corJusing and ambiguous. Also, there  !

opp.opriata use of the offsite '

directly involved in Iniplementing was a great deal of misunderstand 1n6

• notification capability.%e use of this

. planning objectives of the rule strongly with the use of the term because. In the notification capability will range from '

favor alternative A since it provides for past, the obta,ining of NRC immediate notification of the public l g] a cooperative effort with State and local " concurrence in State emergency (within 15 minutes) to listen to.

i

,a governments to reflect their concerns response plans was voluntary on behalf predesignated radio and television and destres in these rules.This choice is of the States and not a regulatory stations, to the more likely events where responsive to that effort. In addition, the requirement in the licensing process. there is sestanda! ume avaUaMe for

'ndustry strongly supported alternative Previously too. " concurrence" was the State and local governmental

, A as being the more workable of the two statewide rather than site-specific, officials to make a Judgment whether or

1. alternatives VI. Fifteen-Minute Notifiestion not to activate the public notification

h. In Appendilx E. Sections H.C and III, The requirement for the capability for system.

Q M

alternative A would require an applicant /licensea to outline ". . . notification of the public within 15 Any accident inv61ving severe fuel

1. 1' corrective measures to prevent damage minutes after the State / local authorities degradation or core melt that results in l

D p

to onshe end offsite prope ." as well as protective measures for toe public.

beve been notified by the licensee has been expanded and clarified. it also has significant inventories of thsfon -

products in the containment would  !

Y Alternative B addresses only protective been removed as a footnote and placed in the body of Appendix E.The warrant immediato public notification and consideration, ba6ed on the Z

g measures for the public health and safety.The Commission has chosen implementation schedule for this particularcircumstances,of appropriate d alternative D because public health and requirement has been extended to July 1. protective action because of the 1981.nis extension of time has been potential for leakage of the containment l

l h

bg safety should take clear precedence over actions to protect property, adopted because most State and local building. In addition, the warning time l

Measures to protect property can be governments identified to the avallatele for the public to take action l

%I M taken on an ad hoc basis as resources Commission the difficulty in procurin8 hardware, contracting for installa tion, may be substutfally less than the total l 'Q become available after an accident. time between the original initiating In Appendix E, under Training. and developing procedures for operating event and the time at which significant j

N alternative A would provide for a jolnt the systems used to implement this radioactive releases t:ke place.

y licensee, Federal. State, and local requirement. Specification of particuler times as g government exercise every 3 years. The Commission is aware that verlaua design objectives for notification of g' whereas alternative D would provide for commenters, largely from the industry, these exercises to be performed every 5 have objected to the nature of the 15-offsite authorities and the public are a means of ensuring that a :Ystem will be gd years at each site.The Commlaston has minute notification requirement. in place with the capability to notify the b chosen alternative B because the indicating that it may be both arbitrary

{.ublM t' Commission is satisfied that the and unworkable. steningtotoseek further information predesignated radio or by TU provision that these exercises be Araong the possible alternatives to this requirement are a longer television stations. %e Commission N performed every 5 years for each site will allow for an adequate level of notification time, a notification time that recognizes that not every individual hMj preparedness among Federal emergency varies with distance from the facility, or would necessarily be reached by the actual operation of such a system under M response agencies,in addition, under no specified time. la determining what that criterion should be, a line must be all conditions of system use. However, f<

o these regulations, each licensee is required to exercise annually with local drawn somewhere, and the Commission the Commission believes that provision of a genera 1 alerting system will R governmental authorities. Furthermore, believes that providing as much time as significantly improve the capability for (N " Federal emergency response agencies practicable for the taking of protective may have difficulty supporting exercises action is in the interest of public health taking protective actions in the event of n an emergency.ne reduction of U every 3 years for all of the nuclear and safety.ne Commission recognizes that this requirement may present a notification times from the several hours

$ facilities that would be required to significant financialimpact and that the required for street-by-street notification i comply with these rule changes.

@& technical bests for this requirement is to minutes will significantly increase the l V. Definition of Plan ApprovalProcess not without dispute. Moreover, there options available as protective actions I under severe accident conditions. These p The term " concurrence" has been deleted from the proposed regulations may never be an accident requiring actions could include staying indoors in using the 15-minute notifh:ation yk. and replaced with reference to the capability. However, the essential the case of a release that has already actual procedure and standards that rationale behind emergency planning is occurred or a precautionary evacuation

7; in the case of a potential release theught 1, J NRC and FEMA have agreed upon and to provide additional assurance for the W are implementing. According te the public protection even during such an to be a few hours away. Accidents that agreed upon procedure, FEMA will unexpected event. %e 15-minute do not result la core melt may also nottlication capability requirement is cause relatively quick releases for which y-'

make a finding and determination as to the adequacy of State and local wholly consistent with that rationala, protective actions, at least for the public J. government emergency response plans. %e Commission recognizes that no in the immediate plant vicinity, are

/

^

The NRC will determine the adequacy of single accident scenario abould form the desireble,

f. ,

F q ,

bn 4

w r7-k , '

-- . 7" M W.) - y ~~

'.~

.z.r._'

o . z. _.___ m ..  !

g . _

. > ' f

.  ;( .

1 y i 1

19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations m%

q Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.182 / Tuesday, August S 55408 seeking an operating license from NRC Some comments received on the reasons exist for reactor operation.

Finally, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(f), the that have not had an exercise involving b, f l proposed rule advocated the use of a Commission may,in appropdate the State plan at that facility site.

The Commission has determined p' el li staged notification system with quick circumstances, make the order i notification required only near the plant.' immediately effective, which could under the criteria in 10 CFR Part 51 that 'd an environmentalimpact statement for I The Commission believes that the result inimmediate plant shutdown q capability for quick notification within subject to a later hearing, the amendments to to CFR Part 50 and Appendix E thereof is not required. His f

the entire plume exposure emergency g.p g ,8 determination is based on y,1 planning zone should be provided but 8"d secognizes that some planners may wish , in view of the requirements in these " Environmental Assessment for Final I l

Changes to 10 CFR Part 50 and t f to have the option of selectively rule changes reigarding the actions to be Appendix E of to CPR Part 50, K.

I actuating part of the system during an taken in the event State and local Emergency Planning Requirements for actt;al response. Planners should government planning and preparedness Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0685, M, <

!j- carefully cpnsider the impact of the are or become inadequate, a utility may h added decisions that offsite authorities have an incentive, bas ~ed on its own self June would need to make and the desirability interest as well as its responsibi!Jty to 1980). Comments on the " Draft Negative Declaration: Finding of No p')

6 Significant impact" (45 FR 3913, January f of establishing an official prvvide power, to assist in,providing 21,1980) were considered in the j) h communication link to all residents in manpower, items of equipment, or other the plume exposure emergency planning resources that the State and local preparation of NUREG-0685 ')

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of f-zone when determining whether to plan governments may need but are 1954. as amended, the brgy ;I l h:- for a staged notification capability. themselves unable to provide.The Reorganization Act of1974, as amended. f, f

g VII. Effective Date of Rules and Other Commission believes that in view of the President's Statement of December 7, and Sections 552 and 553 cf Title 5 of the United States Code, notice is hereby t

Guidance 1979, giving FEMA the lead role in 3 Prior to the publication of these given that the following amendments to 1 E': amendments, two guidance documents offsite planning and preparedness, the Title 10, Chapter 1. Code of Federal ,

question of whether the NRC should or Regulations, Parts 50 and 70, are ,'

.l were published for public comment and could require a utility to contribute to Interim use.These are NUREG-0610, the expenses incurred by State and local published as a document subject to y

] " Draft Emergency Action level governments in upgrading and codfficatfora.

• Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants." maintaining their emergency phnning f j f Part 50-Domestic Ucensing of

[ September 1979) and NUREG-0654/ and preparedness (and ifit is to be -

FEMA-REP-1," Criteria for Preparation Production and Utilization Facilities E, W[  !

and Evaluation of Radiological required, the mechanics for doing so)is bryond the scope of the present rule 1. Paragraph (g) of Section 50.33 is '# 1 Emergency Response Plans and change.It should be noted, however, revised to read as follows- *

,d Preparedness in Support of Nuclear that any direct funding of State or local Contents of appneations; general Power Plents for Interim Use and 1 50.33 governments solely for emergency informatkm.

g Comment " (January 1980), it is e xpected preparedness purposes by the

• Federal

• *

• 4 fa 1

that versions of these documents, government would come through FEMA.

a revised on the basis of public comments (g)lf the application is for an received, will be issued to assist in L Exercises operating license for a nuclear power 4 l defining acceptable levels of On an annual basis, all commercial reactor, the applicant shcIl submit J radiological emergency response plans M preparedness to meet this final nuclear power facilities will be required 1 of State and local governmental entities 7 regulatfun. In the interim, these by NRC to exercise their plans: these 1 in the United States that are wholly or B d- documents should continue to be used exercises should involve exercising the partially within the plume exposure A F as guidance. appropriate local government plans in pathway Emergency Planning Zone Vill. llearing Procedures Used in support of these facilities.The State (EPZ)', as well as tbo plans of State ,

implementation of These Regulaticas may choose to limit its participation in governments wholly or partially within exercises at facilities other than the the ingestion pathway EPZ.' Generally, Should the NRC believe that the overall state of emergency preparedness exercise (s) offacility the State(site) plan. chosen forthethe annual plume exposure pathway EPZ for

$ y at and around a licensed facility is such nuclear power reactors shall consist of 1 Each State and appropriate local

that there is some question whethe. a government shall annually conduct an an area about to miles (to km) fri radius facility should be permitted to continue and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall i exercise jointly with a commercial consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) to operate, the Commission may lasue nuclear power facility. However, States i an order to the licensee to show cause, with more than one facility (site) shall in radius.The exact size and 7 pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, why the plant schedule exerefres such that each configuration of the EPZs surrounding a should not be shut down.This issue may individual facility (site) is exercised in particular nuclear power reactor shall arise, for example,if NRC finds a conjunction with the State and be determined in rt.!ation to the local

- significant deficiency in a licensee plan appropriate local government plans not emergency response needs and or in the overall state of emergency less than once every 3 years for sites L e cmersency Plannin Zones flyZat are discussed preparedness, with the plume exposure pathway EPZ in Nunr&cwe. EPA uch.4 cts. *Plannins Daos If the NRC decides to lasue an order to partially or wholly within the State, and show cause, it will provide the licensee not less than once every 5 years g, for sites i' g , D",'l

,, 4*'a(of8[,'*" g ,c,o;e I

the opportunity to demonstrate to the with the ingestion exposure pathway of tashi waar t ucint Ponr PlanC Decemtier i Commission a satisfaction, for example, ms.

EpZ partially or wholly within the State. *1r me siete and locat.merg ncy c.. pons, p1.no j that the alleged deficiencies are not The State shall choose, on a rotational han ben povlously provided to the NRC for l

',",'[y"',$"j$,*,$pdj$'[nc,y,,"h""(

% significant for the teactor in question. basis, the site (s) at which the required i9

?

whether adequate interim compensating annual exercise (s)is to be conducted; Y reautrement i actions have been or will be taken priority shall be given to new facilities promptly, or whether other compelling g

2

N Federal Reibter / Vol. 45. No.162 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55409 ,.

l 'e (3) Arrangements for requesting and established for emergency workers. The capabilities as they are affected by such means for controlling radiological u, conditions as demography, topography, effectively using assistance resources have been made, arrangements to exposures shallinclude exposure ql' land characteristics. access routes. and guidelines consistent with EPA jurisdictionalboundaries.%e size of the accommodate State andlocalstaff at i EPZa also may be determined on a case. the licensee's near-site Emergency Emergency Wo'rker and Lifesaving Operations Facility have been made. Activity Protective Action Guidea. , ,%

by-case basis for gas-cooled reactors J and other organizations capable of (12) Arrangements are made for and for reactors with an authorized medical services for contaminated i powerlevelless than 250 MW thermal. augmenting the planned response have  ;!

been identified. injured individuals.

The plans for the ingestion pathway 1 (4) A steded emergency (13) General plans for recovery and shall focus on spch actions as are appropriate to protect the food ingestion cl6:sification and action level scheme. reentry are developed. D the bases of whlwh include facility (14) Periodic exercises are (will be) pathway.

system and effluent parameters. is in conducted to evaluate major portions of [d "

2. A new I 50A7 is added. use by the nuclear facility licensee. and energency response capabilities, d i 50.47 Emergency plans. State and local response plans call for periodic drills are (will be) conducted to reliance on information provided by develop and maintain key skills, and by (a)(1) Ne operating license for a i;,

nuclear power reactor will be issued facility licensees for determinations of deficiencies identified as a result of unless a finding is made by NRC that the minimum initial offsite response exercises or drills are (will be) i

% *4 state of onsite and offsite emergency nicasures. corrected.

preparedness provides reasonable (5) Procedures have been established (15) Radiological emergency response P assurance that adequate protective for notification, by the licensee, of State training is provided to those who may 9e and local response organizations and for be called on to assist in an emergency. L*

' measures can and will be taken in the notification of emergency personnel by T-event of a radiological emergency, (16) Responsibilities for plan 3 all organizations the content of initial development and review and for (2) The NRC will base its finding on a and followup messages to response distribution of emergency plans are E)l review of the Federal Emergency D!

organizations and the public has been established. and planners are properly Management Agency (FEMA) findings established; and means to provide early '

and determinations as to whether Stete tralmi ~

S

• notification and clear instruction to the (c)(1) Failure to meet the standards set and local emergency plans are adequate Populace within the plume exposure forth in P regraph (b) of this subsection and capable of being implemented. and erg cy Planning Zone have on the NRC assessment as to whether {athway ,,y ,,, ult in the Commission declining .

, ee to issue an Operating Limnset however, yl

' the applicant's onsite emergency plans visions exist for prompt are adequate and capable of being (e communication among principal the applicant will have an opportunity l2

• d imple nented. in any NRC licensing to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the a proceeding, a FEMA finding will ms p,r agt el and to t e pu 11 8 Commission that deficiencies in the k constitute a rebuttable presumption on a plans are not significant for the plant in ,

(7)Information is made svadable to question. that adequate interim questionof adequacy.

, the pub!!c on a pedodic basis on how Compensating actions have been or will  ;

(b)%e onsite and offsite emergency they wul be notified and what their

rnponse plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following initial actions should be in an ernergency (e.g listening to a local be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to permit plant l/ 4 standards, broadcast station &nd femaining operation. '

(2) Generally, the plume exposure

' (1) Primary responsibilities for indoors), the principal points of contreat emergency response by the nuclear pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants '

r with the news media for dissemination facility licensee and by State and local of information dur'ng an emergency shall consist of an area about to mues (to km)in redlus and the ingestion 1 organizations within the Emergency (including the physicallocation or Planning Zones have been assigned, the locations) are established in advance, pathway EPZ shall consist of an area emergency responsibilities of the and procedures for coordinated about 50 mues (80 km)in radius.no ,,

exact size and configuration of the EPZs various supporting organizations have

dissemination of information to the surrounding a particular nuclear power >

been specifically established, and each public are established.

principal response organization has staff (8) Adequate emergency facilities and reactor shall be determined in relation ,

to local emergency response needs and ,.

to respond and to augment its Initial equipment to support the emergency v response are provided and maintained. capabilities as they are affected by such response on a continuous basis, conditions as demography, topography.

(2) On. shift facility licensee (9) Adequate methods, systems, and land characteristics access routes, and 1 responsibuities for emergency response equipment for assessing and monitoring -

actual or aotential offsite consequences jurisdictional boundaries.%e size of the are unambiguously defined, adequate EPZs also may be dstermined on a case- -

staffing to provide initial faculty of a radiological emergency condition are in use. by-case basis for gas. cooled nuclear ,

accident response in key functional areas is maintained at all times, timely (10) A range of protective actions reactors and for reactors with an j authorized powerlevelless than 250 ,

augmentation of response capabilities is have been developed for the plume MW thermal.ne plans for the ingentMn available and the interfaces among exposure pathway EPZ for emergency l

.workers and the public. Guidelines for pathway shall focus on such actions as varioue onsite response activities and are appropriate to protect the food I offsite support and response activities the choice of protective actions during '

an emergency, consistent with Federal ingestior pathway.

are specified. 3. Section 50M is at: ended by adding i guidance, are developed and in place. '

+m.. iendard. re addressed by pecific and protective actions for the ingestion five new paragraphs (q) (r) (s). (t), and crHerta in fCREG-onn PcMA-REP-t entitled exposure pathway EPZ appropriate to (u)~

"Catens for Preparation and Evolustion of the localeshave been developed.

Np'ab'e's.$*su#*"'#ri p oIE"[*ar.r l o'"* *Yt ats- (11) Means for control!!ng radiological lsoM Coretione of seensea.

For intertm tJse and Comrnent" January 1980. exposures, in an emergency, are

ah Federal Register / Vol. 45. No.162 / Tuesday. August 19,1p00 / Rules c.nd R gulatio '

55410 significant for the plant in question, or > J within 60 days of the effective date of that adequate inte:im compensating -

(q) A licensee authorized to possess this amendment the radiological cnd/or op: rate a nuclear power reactor actions have been or willbe taken emergency response plans of State and promptly, or that there are other q shell follow and maintain in effect local governmental entities in the United compel!N reasons for continued O emergency plans which meet the States that are wholly or partla!!y within operation. ,/

st:ndards in i 50.47(b) and the c plume exposure pathway EPZ, as well (3)The NRC willbase its finding on a .:

requirements in Appendix E of this Part, as the plans of State governments review of the FEMA findings and A licensee authortred to possess and/or wholly or partially within an ingestion determinations as to whether State and @.

operate e research reactor or a fuel .f pathway EPZ.i. Ten (10) copies of the local emergency plans are adequate and f:cility shall follow and maintain in above plans shall be forwarded to the $.

effect emergency plans which meet the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation capable of being implemented, and on d! >

the NRC assessment as to whether the .

G i requirements in Appendix E of this Part. with 3 copies to the Director of the licensee's emergency plans are adequate The nuclear power reactor licensee rnay appropriate NRC regional office. and capable of beingimplemented.

Q make changes to these plans without Generally, the plume exposure pathway Nothing in this paragraph shall be Commission approval only if such EpZ for nuclear power reactore shall construed aslimiting the authority of the p:i 3,

3 ,!

changea do not decrease the consist of an area about 10 miles (to km) Commission to take action under any J l effectiveness of the plans and the plans, es changed, continue te meet the in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ other regulation or authority of the Commission or at any time other than N

shall consist of an area about 50 mt!es  %

standards of I 50.47(b, and the (30 km)in radius.The exact size and that specified in this paragraph.

requirernents of Appendix E of this Part. configuration of the EPZs for a (t) A nuclear power reactor licensee s The research reactor licensee and/or the Particular nuclear power reactor shall shall provide for the development, fuel f acility lleensee may make changes be determined in relation to local revision, implementation.and '

to these plans without Commission emergency response needs and maintenance of its emergency approval only if such changes do not capabilities as they are affected by such preparedness program.To this end, .% the decrease the effectiveness of the plans conditions as demography, topography, licensee shall provide for a review of its and the plans, as changed, continue to land characteristics, access routes, and emergency preparedness program at ,g-meet the requirements of Appendix E of jurisdictionalboundaries.The size of the least every 12 months by persons who this part. Proposed changes that ,,,

EpZs also may be determined on a case- have no direct responsibility for by case basis for gas-cooled nuclear (

secrease the effectiveness of the implementation of the emergency .

approved energency plans shall not be preparedness program. The review shall reactors and for reacters with an implemented without application to and authorized power levelless than 250 include an evaluation for adeguacy of @f l  !

spproval by the Commission. The MW thermal. The lans for the ingestion interfaces with State and loca. %q l y,

hcensee shall furnish 3 copies of each pathway EPZ sha focus on such governments and of licensee drills,  % ;

proposed change for approval; and/or if actions as are apprc'priate to protect the exercises, capabilities, and procedures.

y. ,!

a change is made without prior fwd ingestion pathway. The results of the review, along with approval. 3 copies shall be submitted (2) For operating power reactors, the recommendations for improvements, 90 within 30 days after the change is made licensee State, and local emergency g shallbe documented, reported to the '

L  ;

or proposed to the Director of the response plans shall be implemented by licensee's corporate and plant appropriate NRC regional office Aprill,1981, ex:ept as provided in management, and retained for a period uO I f

specified in Appendix D,10 CFR Part 20, SectionIV,D.3 of Appendix E of this o! five years.The part of the review with 10 copies to the Director of Nuclear part.If after April 1,1981, the NRC finds involving the evaluation for adequacy of 3)L Q I ReactorRegu'ation or,if appropriate, that the state of emergency ,.d' the Director of Nuclear Material Safety preparedness does not provide interface with State and local A goverrunents shall be available to the  ;

and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory reasonable assurance that appropriate appropriate State and local , , ,

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 pr tective measures can and will be governments, y  ;

taken in the event of a radiological (u) Within 60 days after the effective (r) Each licer see who is authorized to emergency and if the deficiencies are date of this amendment, each nuc! car k-possess and/or operate a research or test reactor f acility with an authorized not corrected within four months of that power reactor !!censee shall submit to ower jevel greater than or equal to 500 erma u r a li n e of th type finding, the Commission will determine the NRC plans for coping with whether the reactor shall be shut down emergencies that meet standards in M)a bi

, I* until such deficiencies are remedied or i 50 47(b) and the requirements of Y P

emergency plans complying with to CFR whether other enforcement action Part 50 Appendix E, to the Director of appropriate. In determining whether a e is Appendix e

E of this part.

e e e d Nuclear Reactc ilegulation for approval shutdown or other enforcement t action la

'PP

" P$(0.y'Appendix E. la O nto a cou 't n go er ac ,

8 i

bt le.Each c n ce oi authorized to possess and/or operate a whether the licensee can demonstrate to Append!x L -Eroergency Planning and 3 J l

the Commission's satisf actio:. that the Preparedness for Production and Utillation research reactor facility with an authorized power levelless than 500 kW deficiencies in the plan are not Facilities' y$[

thermal, under a license of the type Tone of Contents i tmewney mnnins zones grza) ere discussed 91 specified in i 50.21(c), shall submit 1' introduction 'f#*

in rCRECm EPA s20/1-rs-mtvNnrans Basis emergency plans complying with 10 CFR lopment of 8'ata and local Government -

M part 50, Appendix E, to the Director of for the Dl P ediologica Erne *gency Respones Plans in Support -

• NRC statihas developed two reguistory guhin:

N i.

Nuc. t ear Reactor Regulation for approval or ught Water Nuclear Power segrne.,ency Plants.* Decemter Wnnins for Rnearch Fenctors?

and a 4z. " Emergency clannins in Puel Cyr.le W$

within two years from the effective date :n a 8 M the State and local emergency response plans FactDtWe and Plants Ucensed Under 10 CMt Parts St' of this amendment, hm imen g wlmly pmytded to the NRC for so and W aN! a Mnt NRC/MMA report NUREC- F 1 (s)(1) Each licensee who Is SuthoriZed tnclusion in the faciuty docket. the oppkcant need0654. MNA Rrwcruena for Preparsuon and only provide the approprwie rermnce to meet this Footnotes continued on next pase d l to possess and/or operate a nuclear power reactor shall summit to NRC requuement. @y

7 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55411 p . {,

.1 sQ  ;-

II. De Prehm! nary Safety Analysis Report considereuons as eccess routes surrounding expmston of the overau concept of p#

operation: they sha!! describe the euential  ;

!!! The Final Safety Analysis T.eport population distributions, land use, and local jurisdictional boundaries for the EFis in the elements of advana planning that have been [ j IV. Content of Emergency Plans 4 V. Implementing Procedures case of nodear power reactors as weU as the considered and the provtsions that have been ..

sneans by which the standards of l 60 47(t) made to cope with emergency situations. The plans shallincmrporate information about the

'p. .b ,

M I Introduction will be met.

As a eninimum, the following items shall be emergency roepocos roles of supporting Eache required hplicant I 50.34(a) tofor a construction include in the permit described; is organizations and offatte agencies. nat information sball be sufBeient to provide t[h}k" nW m ?

prehminary safety analysis report e A. Onsite and offsite organizations for discussion of preliminary plans for coping coping with emergencice and the means for assuranos of coordination among the LW ,.

hy i eupporting groups and with the boensee.

W P t

with emergeacles Each applicant for en notification to the event of an emergency, of The plans submitted must indude a operating license is required by i 60.34(b) to include in the final safety analysis report persons assigned to the emergency organizations. description of the elements set out in Section IV for the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) '

f%d

[ py plans for coping with emergencies. B. Contacts and arrangements made and This appendix establishes minimum documented with local, State, and federal to an extent suf!1cient to demonstrate that the p { J. j requirements for emergency plans for use in governmental agencies with responsibility foe plans provide reasonable saeurance that appropriate snee.sures can and will be taken Na' attaining an acceptable state of emergency coping with emergencies, including in the event of an m,-@

preparedness. These plans shall be described identification of the principal agencies, 3d A Q generally in the preliminary s&fety analysis C. Protactive enessures to be taken within IV, Content ed Emergency P;ans b

%Q ** 1 report and submitted es a part of the final the site boundary and within each EPZ to The applicant,e emergency plans shall 4,4; safety snelysis report- protect health and safety in the event of an e ntain, but not neceuarily be limited to, .g ,-

Ee potental redinlodcal hazards to the accident, procedures by which these measures are to be carried out (e p., in the .

in! rmation needed to demonstrate , jq pubhc associated with the operstion of C mpham wi6 the elemets ut fwe A .,

research and test reactors and fuel faciDt es hcensed under to CFR Parts 50 and 70 case of an eveeustion. who authortres the evacuation, how the puhuc is to be notified below. Le. wganizaun for coping we n& sum emergecin asonsment action, 7;y gy, and instructed, how the evacuation is to be 3 involve considerations different than those associated with nuclear power reactors. carried out); and the expected response of *#U**

"and ** U"" U" E "I ']**"#""U **"#I "8""I**UI* "* " #fa LO .g ._$

Consequently, the size of Emergency 'offde agencies in the event of an emergency. equipment, tr'aining','anatotalning Planning Zones *(EPZs) for facilites other than power reactors and the degree to which (D) Testures of the facility to be provided for onsite emergency first aid and

"*"#I # """"O M7 comphance with the requirements of this d tamin ti df

• "" "8N *** ""' MMN l

n c sia deter ne on a . a$by-tns eng r es.

"d

• w n w ra Informauon needed to demonsteste

$a contain h

, 3 d C*buk* E. Provisions to be medt, for emergency compliance with the standards described in r tnetment at offsite facihties of individuals Section 6047(b)

• and they will be evaluated # i II.ne Preliminary Safety Analysis Report injured as a result of licensed setivities. against those standards. no nuclear power Gj The Preluninary Safety Analysts Report shall contain sufficient information to ensure F. Provisions for a training program for upl yees of the licensee. tododing those reactor operating 11&nse appbcant shall also provide an analysk of the time required to z% 7 h

the compatibility of proposed emergency plans for both onsite areas and the EPZa.

who are assigned specific authority and evacuste and for taking other r*otective NM resp naibility in the event of an emergency, actions for trarious sectors and distanws with facility design features, site layout. and and for other penons who are not emplo3 ees within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for @e r '

site location with respect to a .ch of the Ucensee but whose assistance ansy be transient and permanent populations. 3 l

Iwotnotes continued from inst pare needed in the event of a radiological A. Oganizatiari AN *j .

l faniusuon of Ramoiogul thergency ke.ponse emergency.

G. A preliminary analysis that pre}ects the ne organization, for copingwith M S

" " ' time and means to be employed to the radiological emergencies shnu be described.

w$r Pian or in nn ae an e roufica tion of State and local governments including definition of authorities. @@gj lanuary toaa to prwtde guidance in developing plans for coptns with eme gencies Copies of thcae and the pubile in the event of an emergency.

• responsibilities, and duties ofindividuals jgy g.

documents are available at the Commission's Public A nudear power plant applicant shay assigned to the licensee's emergency organization and the means for nottlication of 4 @, .

Document Room.1717 H Street, fiW. Washington, perform a preliminary analysis of the time a j D C 20555 Copies of these docurn mis may be required to evacus te various sectors and such ladriduals in the event of an purthosed from the Govemment Pnnuns Office. distances within the plume exposure emergency. Specifically, the following shall 4 91 Informanon on curwnt pnces may be obistned by pathway EPZ for translent and permanent be indudei Wy "! -

L A descnption of the normal plant  ;,

\o e populations, noting major impediments to the h na n. . u P evacuation or taking of protective actions. Operating organization. .

Selce Manager 1. A desertption of the onsite emergency

'ITZa for power reactors are discussed in H. A preliminary analysis reflecting the response organization with e detailed g j, need to indude facihties, rystem6. and NUREG-03DO. ETA 5 o/t-76 016. " Planning Dee:s &acussion of; y ,

for the Developmerit of State and t.ucal Govemment methods for identifying the degree of a. Authorttles, responsibihtles, and duties p. }g Radiological E"Itenry Response Plans in Support senouaness and potential scope of of the inri'vidual(s' who will take charge Qg of Light Water Nuclear Power P! ants." December radiological consequences of emergency durma an emergency; t tra The stre of trie EPZa for o nuclear power plant gt situations within and outside the site b. Plant sta!! emergency eastgnmenta. g!

shall be determined in relation to local emergency boundary,induding capabilities for uose response needs and capabdmee as they et affected

c. Authorttles, responsibibtles and duties j .

by such cond2tions as demography. topography.

e ton usW Mabtim Mdo@l on to ensite emergency coordinator who a information and for dispatch of redialogicag shall be in cha of the exchange of i' l land charactensttes. access routes. and I-monitoring teams within the EPZs: and e information wt offalte authorttles Junsdictmnalboundance The atte of the IT*a also may be determined on a case by case besta for ass- prehminary analysis reflecting the role of the onsite technical support center and of the responsible for coonlinating and implementing offsite emergency snessures.

M'f cooled nuclear reertnes and for resetors wttb en

• near-site emergency operations facihty in suthortred power levelless than 250 Mw thermal Generally, the plume eaposure petwey EPZ for essessing information, recommend!r.g d**

' '

• g ** '

b h " **"

• M' nuclear power piants mth an authonsed power protective action. and d!sseminating q level greater than 250 MW thermal shall cnnaist of Wormation to the puglic. .,

an area about 10 miles (ts km)in radius and the J, inpouen psthway EP shall consist of an area lH.De Final Safety Analysis Report creem to Ntscosat NA-m-t enatled s "Critene far pvwparation and Evalust6an of ,

strout so mDea (80 km)in redlua.

9tegulatory Gulde 2 6 will be used as guidance he Finalbefety Analysis Feport shall Raddagtd Emergency Kaspanse P.ana and vl e ;

d contain the plans for coping with preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants for the acceptabihty of research and test tvector tur iniects tjse and Cnaument'leeuery tona I eme.genn ,e. cones pians. emergencies. ne plans shall be an

- 4 y

. - 4

massmann- __ .

$T

$5

~ w 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations _

ff Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.182 / Tuesday,* August d 55412 hh

2. Equ!pment for determining the magnf tude noted for such agencies.ne emergency of and for continuously assessing the impact $*A hndquarten personnel who will be sent to the plant site to augment the onsste classes defined shall include: (1) notification of the release of radioactive materials to the h cmIrgrncy organization, of unusual events. (2) elert. (3) site area emergency, and (4) general emergency. Dese environment;

3. Facilities and supplies at the site for 7 classes are further discussed in NURIC-0654. decontamination of onsite individuals:J

4. Identification, by position and function a

to b2 pstformed, of persons within the FEMA-REP-1. 4. Facilities and medical supplies at the site @

licensee organization who wiu be responsible for appropriate emergency first aid treatment:

for miking offsite dose projections, and a 7e D. Notificot/on Procedums d:scription of how these projections wul be 1. Administrative and physical means for

8. Arrangements for the services of physidans and other medical personnel 4

A m:de and the resub transelfted to State and notifying loc,al. State, and Federal officials qualified to handle radiation emergencies on-locd authorities, fiRC, and other appropriate and agencies and agreements reached with site d governmental entnas. these officials and agencies for the prompt 6. Arrangement for transportation of Q

5. Identification, by position and function notification of the public and for public contaminated injured individuals from the P

to be performed of other employees of the evacuation or other protectf ve measures, site to specifically identified treatment licensse with special qualifications for coping should they become necessary, shau be with emergency conditions that may arise, described.nis description shallinclude facilities outside the site boundary:  %*M Other persons with special qualifications, identification of the appropriate officials,by

y. Arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed h M8 such as consultants, who are not employees title and agency,of the State and local of the licensee and who may be called upon for assisttnce for emergendes shall also be government agencies within the EPZs.8

2. Provisions shau be described for yearly activities on the site at treatment facilldes outside the site boundary Q y

8. A licensee onsite technical support identified.no special qualifications of these dissemination to the public within the plyme center and a licensee near-site emergency $

4 pusons shau be described.

6. A description of the local offsite services exposure pathway EPZ of besie emergency operations facility from which effective planning information, such as the methods direction can be given and effective control D

%y to be provided in support of the licensee's and times required for public notification and can be exercised chtring an emergency:

ht emergency organizadon.

7. identification of, and assistance the protective actions planned if an accident 9. At least one onsite and one offsite occurs. generalinformation as to the nature communications system: each system shall h4 expected from, appropriate State, local, and and effects of radiation, and a listing of local have a backup power source.

Federal agencies with responsibilities for broadcast stations that will be used for All communication plana shall have h, coping with emergencies, dissemination of information during an arrangements for emergencies, including /

s. Identification of the State and/orlocalemergency. Signs or other measures shall titles and alternates for those in charge at $

officials responsible for planning for, also be used to disseminate to any transient Q ordering, and controlling appropriate both ends of the communication links and the  %

population within the plume exposure protective ections, including evacuations pathway EpZ appropriate information that primary and backup means of communication. Where consistent with the $

6 when necessary, would be helpfulif an accident occurs.

3. A lleensee shall have the capabuity to function of the governmental agency, these G arrangements wiD t h:de:

B Assessment Actions notify responsible State and local a. Provision for communications with f

/d The means to be used for determining the governmental agencies within 15 minutes magnitude of and for continusHy assessing contiguous State / local governments withfn M after declaring an emergency.no licenses the impact of the release of radioactive shall demonstrate that the State / local the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Such communications shall be tested monthly.

materials shall be described, including officials have the capability to make a public emergency actionlevels that are to be used notification decision promptly on being

b. provision for ummunications with $%

Federal emergency response organizations. Uq as enteria for determining the need for informed by the licensee of an emergency Such communications systems shall be tested notification and participation of local and condition. By July 1.1981, the nuclear power annually.

b W

State agencies. the Commission, and other Federal egencies, and the emergency action reactor licensee shall demonstrate that c. provision for communications among the administrative and physical means have been nuclear power reactor control room, the hd levela that are to be used for determining established for alerting and providing prompt onsite technical support center, and the near.

when and what type of protective measures instructions to the public within the plume site emergency operations facility; and F e

should be considered within and outside exposure the pathway EFZ.The design objective among the nuclear facility, the principal State 4 j site boundary to protect health and safety. shall be to have the capsbuity to essentially and local emergency operations centers, and The emergency action levels sha!! be based complete the initial notification of the public j on in plant conditions and instrumentation in within the plume exposure pathway EPZ the field assessment teams. Such communications systems shau be tested eddition to onsite and offsite monf toring. ii i These emergency action levels shall be within about 15 minutes.The use of this annuaUy.

notification capabuity wUl range from d. Provisions for communications by the h W

discussed and agreed on by the applicant and 'immediate nottf1 cation of the public(within licensee with NRC Headquarters and the State and local governmental authorttles and 15 minutes of the time that State and local y approved by NRC.They shall also be appropriate NRC Regional Office Operations officials are notified that a situation exfsts Center from the nuclear power reactor y

M reviewed with the State and local requiring urgent action) to the more IIkely control room. the onsite technical support governmental authorities on an annual basis,events where there is substantial time h7 C Activot/on of Emergency Orgon/rollon available for the State and local center, and the near site emergency operations facility. Such communications d

j governmental officials to make a judgment shall be tested monthly.

The entire spectrum of emergency whether or not to activate the public r

conditions that involve the alerting or notification system.Where there is e decfslon E D *.# 8 2 activating of progressively larger segments of to activate the notificadon system, the State ne program to provide for (1) the training i l

the total emere ncy organization shall be of employees and exercising, by period!c l

described.The communication steps to be and local officials will determine whether to attivate the entire notification system drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure taken to alert or ?ctivate emergency simultaneously or in a graduated or staged that employees of the licensee are fs:nitiar k,

personnelunder each class of emergency y shall be described. Emergency action levels manner. The responsibility for activating with thelt specific emergency response duties such a public notifics' don system shaU remain and (2) the participation in the training and [x (based not only on onsite and offsite radiation monitoring information but also on with the appropriate government authorities. drius by other persons whose assistance may be needed in the event of a radiation ki teadings from a number of sensors that E. Emergency rect /ittee and Equipment emergency shall be described.This shall

?"

I indicate a potential emergency, such as the Adequate provisions shau be made and include a descripuon of specialized initial {ii pressure in containment and the responsedescribed of for emergency facilities and training and periodic retrainLng programs to L )

the Emergency Core Cooling System) for equipment. including- be provided to each of the fouowing notification of offsite agencies shaU be 1. Equipment at the site for personnel categories of emergency personneh described. De existence. but not the detalls. monitoring-of a message authentication scheme shallbe 4-

-x

Federal Register / Vol. 45 No.162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55413 ' i y

1

(

a. Directors and/or coordinators of the licensed for operstion each year a full scale furnish the Director of Nuclear Material W@ j Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear plant emergency organization; exercise is not conducted which involves the 7 1(

State (s) within the plume exposure pathway Regulatory Commission, Washington.

b. Personnel responsible for accident assessment, including control room shift EPZ. D.C. 20555, with a copy to the D t4 personnel; All training. induding exercises. shall appropriate NRC Regional Office y

c. Radiological monitoring teams; provide for formal critiques in order to specified in Appendix D, Part 20 of this ( ,s

d. Fire control teams (fire brigsdesh identify weak areas that need corrections, Any weaknesses that are identified shau be Chapter, each change within six months y pj

e. Repolt and damage control teams; after the change is made. Proposed pF

f. First and and rescue teams; corrected. N, . r changes that decrease the effectiveness g Medical su port personnel; C Molnicining EmerFency Preparedness of the approved emergency plan shall b $

h. Licensee's headquarters suppor O' personnel; Provisions to be employed to ensure that not be implemented without prior

l. Seccrity personnel the emergency plan. Its implementing application to and prior approval by the yd in addition. a radiological orientation procedures, and emergency equipment and gmmgon. '

training program shall be made available to supp!!es are maintained up to date shall be * * * * * {s local services personnel, e.g., local Civil described.* ISec.181b. l., and o. Pub. L 83-703,88 Stat. } M l Defense. local law enforcement personnel. E A8C"7 948 [42 USC. 2201); Sec. 201, as amended.  ? p l local news media persons.

Criteria to be used to determine when. Pub. L 93-438. 88 Stat.1241 Pub. L 04-79. 89 & G The plan shall describe provisions for the fouowing an accident, reentry of the facility Stat. 413 (42 U.S.C. 5341]) [ ]

conduct of emergency preparedness would be appropriue or when operation Dated at Washington. DC this tith day of i .2 exercises. Exercises shall test the adequacy August 1980. O "J could be resumed shall be described.

of timing and content of trnplementJng procedures and methods, test emergency

• V, Implementing Procedures For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuey. CMlk. g-

' )"

equipment and communication networks, test No less than 100 days prior to scheduled g7 the public notification system. and ensure lasuance of an operating !! cense for a nuclear Secretary of the Commission, that emergency organization personnel are A-familiar with their duties. Each licensee shall Power reactor or a license to possess nuclear pa tu. as.eum.d wa-an ao .ml material.3 cpples of each of the applicant's exercise at least annually the emergency plan detailed implementing procedures for its samo caos mus M g, a for each site at which it has one or more emergency plan shall be submitted to the gW j power reactors licensed for operation. Both full. scale and smau scale exercises shau be Director of the appropriate NRC Regional Office with to copies to the Director of 10 CFR Part 50 [P ]'

conducted and shall include participation by ff .

Nuclear Reactor Regulation or,if approptiste. Emergency Planning: Negative appropriate State and local government agencies as foHows:

the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Mrah Mg d m @h ~l -

' oft I a s e. S ate ndio a em rgency r ng icen i eYul an on %d W hh % % ( .;

5 year after the effective date of this rula. such AcExcr. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory y i plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory pub!;c p..;cipation shall be implementing procedures shall be submitted Cominim D'g<

as soon as practicable but before full power conducted operation is authorized. Prior to March 1.

Acnosc Final negative declaration: 4,

a. For each site at which one or more 1981. licensees who are authorized to operate finding of no significant imMCt. , g; ,

power resctors are located and licensed for a q en ich willen b e ta e each th e m n p implementing procedures 'o the Director of WMQe &ch maw Commission s regulations require that g .

~j and local govemment within the plume the environmentalImpact of certain exposure pathway EPZ to participate in at the appropriate NRC Regional Office with 10 (( , '?.

copies to the Director of Nuclear Reacter regulatory actions, including substantive ,

least one full scale exercise per year ead Regulation.1hree copies eech of any changes amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. be 1 1 '

which will enable each State within the to maintain these implementing procedures evalut ad to determlae li an t ,

ingestion pathway to participate in at least up to date shall be submitted to the same environmental impact statement should y1

) one full-scale exercise every three years. NRC Regional Office with 10 copies to the

b. For each site at which a power reactor is . Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or. If be prepared. If it is determined an b' located for which the firet operating license environmental impact statement need f appropriate, the Director of Nuclear Material not g prepare a negative declaration for that site is issued after the effective date of this amendment, within one year before Safety and Safeguards within 30 days of such will be issued.ne NRC has evaluated n j}

changes, the issuance of the operating license for full the environmentallmpact of the y power. which will enable each State and PART 70-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF proposed changes to Part 50 dealing

, t..

local government within the plume e xposure .

SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL with emerEency planning EPZ and each State within the ingestion for nuclear power plants (pu re\utrements lished h,Y a pathway EPZ to participate. 2. Section 70.32 is amended b Y addin8 elsewhere in this issue), and has  %

2.The plan shau also describe provisions paragraph (I) to read as follows: determined that the rule changes will ,

for involving Federal emergency response agencies in a fullacale emergency not have a significant impact on the k*'i i 70.32 Conditions of ucenses. human environment.nerefore, an e preparedness exercise for each site at which . . . . .

environmental lmpact statement will not y (i) Licensees required to submit 4a i ense o ope i n a 1 ast o ce ry 5 be prepared, and a negative declaration emergency plans in accordance with is being issued. .g years:

1 3. A small scale exercise which tests the i *0.22(i) shall follow and maintain in eIfect emergency plans spproved by the DATES:The rule changes for emergency } ,b e adequacy of communication Imks. planning wiu become effective .)

j establishes that response agencies Commission. The licensee may make November 3.1980. .!

understand the emergency action levels, and changes to the approved lans without Commission approval o y if such Acoatssts: Copies of the Final j d cal r offsite monito o of'f' site changes do not decrease the Environmental Assessment.NUREG- g emergency response plan for licensee. State, effectiveness of the plans and the plans. 0685, and the comments received by the  ?;-

O and local emergency plans for jurisdictions as changed, continue to meet the Commission may be examined in the 6 M,

V within the plume exposure pathway EPZ Commission's Public Document Room at shall be conducted at each site at which one requirements of Appendix E,Section IV.

E 10 CFR Part 50.ne licensee shall 1717 H Street NW., Washington. D.C. / 1 J or more power reactors are located and .

J.

j

• k k

i O

e Fed:rd Registzt / Vol. 45. No.162 / Tuesday, August

19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations a 5S414 environmental impact statement will not specified in the regulation that the h y

Commission will use in each case to and at local Public Document Rooms. be prepared for these rule changes. bg Single copies of the finalEnvircamental determine whether a shutdown is warranted. When considered together.

Assessment (NUREG-0685) are Analysis gCanments the lack of any significant adverse #

available for purchase through the NRC The groups that submitted comments /

GPO sales program for $4.25 (USNRC. are identifled on the Table together with conanent from State andlocal [

governments. the necessity for Attention Sales Manager, Washington, their principal commenta. No comments Comntission action before a plant will [

D.C. 20555). were received from State or local be shut down and the conditions for p FOR FURTHER INFORMaT10N CONTACT:g vemments, other Federal agencies, or whether a shutdown is warranted, all q MichaelT.lamgochlan. Office of publicinterest grou s. argue convincingly that the assumption p Standards Development. U.S. Nuclear The main point o each set of that shutdowns will be infrequent and of A Regulatory Commission. Washington. comments was that an Environmentalshort duration is sound.Thus, the W D.C. 20355. Telephone: (301) 443-5966. Impact Statement should be prepared assumption is retained in the final hM On for the rule changes and that the CUPPt.EMENT ARY INFORM ATION: Environmental Assessment (NUREG- $k Janusry 21,1980 the Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Assessment ". . . 0685) and the impacts of extended Commission published a ' Draft inadequately addresses the environmentalimpact of the Emergency shutdowns are not considered valid W Negative Declaration: Finding of N impacts of these rule changes. 4.

Significant impact" (45 FR 3913. January Planning Proposed Rule and the . The 14 reconstructed general 21,1980) for proposed changes to 10 CFR economic and social impacts oncomments U.S.

h industry oflong term or permanent and a discussion of each  ?

Part 50, il 50.33. 50.47,50.54 and Appendix E that deal with emergency premature shutdowns of nuclear plants" follow.. 1. Thme commenters (see Toble)

M' planning requirements for nuclear power (AEP).The comments reconstructed into 14 general criticisma.

have been contend that alternatives to the bM plants (44 FR 75167. December 19,1979),which have been analyzed for their proposed rule changes are inadequately ,7 A draft Environmental Assessment addressed. They specifically mention accompanied the draft Negative relevance to the validity of the the some 3 conclusions in the " Draft Negative c/ternouve ways of och/eving/on. .  %

Declaration.The comment period ended end such osproposing legislot f~

Declaration: Finding of No Significant In view of the existing safety record of on Februsry 18.1980.

Sixteen sets of comments were Impact." the nuclearIndustry and the lack of R fy submitted and have been analyzed. One matter warrants additional effective preparation for the TMI pi Although all16 commenters felt that the mention here. An assumption was made accident, the Commission had the in preparation of the DEA that following three alternatives from which

?

draft Environmental Assessment was inadequate to support the Finding of No shutdowns of nuclear power plants as a M Significant Impact, the staff analysis to choose:

result of actions taken under these rule A.The Commission could take no $

does not support this view.The changes would be infrequent and of immediate action itself while short duration. This assumption !s encouraging other parties. I.e., the Q commenters suggested that some points @

critical to the decision that an in the draft Environmental Assessment EnvironmentalImpact Statement should Congress, other Federal Agencies.

States, and the utilities themselves to L% the were in error, some required much more not be prepared.The basis for this detailed discussion. and some points take effective action. This "no action" @N assumption was that, since State and had been ignored.The errors have been corrected and do not significantly affect local authorities have the responsibility, alternative would be counter to the Commission's legislative mandate to y in common with the NRC, to protect protect public health and safety,in fact.

Ph the earlier conclusion. The levels of A pubile health and safety and are detail and the omissions are generally related to the penalties associated with concerned with meeting the energy needs of their citizens,it is likely that the TM1 accident was a clear indication that this " urging without requiring" d to j

[

noncompliance with the rule.The staff originally judged that invocations of the they will cooperate to ensure the continued safe operation or timely emergency preparedness had prove be ineffective.This alternative clearly dh noncompliance penalties (i.e., nuclear commencement of safe operation of could not stand in the face of the Commission's responsibility in this area. O power plant shutdown) would be infrequent and of short duration and the nuclear generation capability within ,B. The Commission is a regulatory g 4

their Jurisdiction. The only significant agency and has as one ofits chief tools associated impacts would thus be adverse reaction by the State and local insignificant. Commenters asserted that the authority to issue regulations that governments that must bear this burden bind those parties that it regulates,if an there will be frequent andlong term shutdowns which will have severe has been that complications in funding of State programs and lead time for effective method for achieving protection of public health and safety is g%@p N

[

impacts which would require detailed equipment acquisitten might make it g 1 consideration in an Environmental difficult to completely satisfy all of the available through promulgation of regulations with specific requirements 1 j Impact Statement.The staff analysis has planning and preparedness and penalties and conditions governing I g supported the judgment of infrequent, requirements by the date set forth in the those requirements and penalties, this short term shutdowns and thus proposed rule changes. As a direct result should be the proper way for the $q, concludes that no additional detailed of this, the deadline for plans and Commission to proceed, b l

studies are necessary, been made in implementation has been extended to C. If the Commission judged that d Minor revisions have Aprill,1981, and the deadline for danger to public health and safety was

<1 the environmental assessment reflecting having warning systems in place has significant and imminent because of p ,j comments received, but its conclusions been extended to July 1.1981.These 4

continued operation of existing plants have not been allered. Based on this extensions should be sufficient in most while effective regulations are assessment, a final determination has cases, developed,it had the authority to 7]

y been made by the Director. Office of it should also be noted that the impose immediate shutdowns until a y>

Standards Development, that the proposed rule changes will not have a Commission has chosen the alternative solution could be found.The safety WN that requires Commission action to record of nuclear power, including the signficant impact on the human initiate a shutdown. Conditions are l

environment and. therefore, that an

N3i t n.

Federal Register / Vol. 45 No.182 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55415  ; j q

r

il/

TM1 accident. does not support an ' t, i IndustryJwida jadgment of imminent.

significant danger. However, potential M' does exist for significant harm to the

, h(

... i publicin the event of a severe accident 2 and the events at TM1 suggest that plans must be made to account for this l (??

potential problem. Notwithstanding this iT potential, given the likelihood of an

[ (,

p3 accident requiring off site emergency ,

t protective measures. lmmediate T industry wide shutdown and the attendant severe long term impacts are {llf l!

.o not warranted.

Alternatives A and C are clearly l di s

. ;'i :

unacceptable.The discussion of -"

alternatives in the Final Environmental Assessment has not been changed from 4

-}f

.., y that in the Draft Environmental '

~

Assessment.

g.Seven commenters (see Tcble) $?h assert that the impacts of shutdowns are kr

. s underestimated and that shutdowns of ;c3 ,

multiple unitplant's orseveralin the u ,,

some State were not considered.

swNo Coot 75tHi-es ffj 4

{y:

V, :

I i 3 t 9 a _. ! -

, IJ l

l

? *.

i

.k z

e

[

i>

j t

?,

j 1

l .]

r

• g 4

]

l .  :

i.

I P.

i I

- _ _ _ - L 1