ML20237A171
| 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 k
.,. l y.
. ; j,.,;,
L. d
"'~
id Rules and Regulations pi Federal Register / Vol. 45 No.162 / Tuesday, August 19,1980 /
55402 1n comments / suggestions 6 co;nnection
_a The final regulation contains the with the proposed amendments within 1:j NUCLEAR REGULATOkt following elements:
60 days after publication in the Federal COMMISSION
- 1. In order to continue operations or to Register. Durib~g~lhis'c, omma}t gIjir)
- <'/
J J
teceive an operating license an January 1980) the Conidilssida conducted four regional workshops with
- j to CFR Parts 50 end 70 applicant / licensee will be required to submit its emergency plans, as well as State and local omcials, utility
,9m Emergency Planning State and local governmental emergency representatives, and the public to h
resp nse plans, to NRC.The NRC will discuss the feasibility of the varicus AoENCr, U*S. Nucleat Regalato then make a finding as to whether the portions of the proposed amendments, C """issi "'
state of onsite and offsite emergency their impact. and the procedures v
ACTION: Final rule.
preparedness provides reasonable proposed for complying with their j"
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 radiological emergency. Nuclear power determinations as to whether State and two petitions for rulemaldng were also y
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 annsment as to whether the emergency plans, together with the the NRC,s/ applicant's emergency plans three panels of public commenters on emergency respon:s plans of State and licensee 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 these panels, including several 9
t !
clarifications' will be extended to " Emergency modifications to the proposed final N
EFFECTIVE DAT1t: November 3,1980.
Planning Zones,"
rules. Finally, on July 23,1980[at the 3, Detailed emergency plan final Commission consideration of these M
Note.-The Nuclear Regulatory 1
Commlulon has submitted this rule to the implementing proceudres of licensees /
rules, the Commisslun was briefed by Comptroller General for review of the applicants will be required to be the General Counsel on the substance of.. J reporting requirements in the rule. pursuant submitted to NRC for review, and conversations with Congressional staff M
- 4. Requirements in to CFR Pcrt 50, members who were involved with 4,
- h. e d$e'on wf[c$l e repo Appendix E are clarilled and upgraded.
passage of the NRC Authorizauon Act g
ng
.a t requirements of the rule become effective
Background
for fiscal year 1980, Pub. L No.96-295.
p attows for Comptroller General review (44 In June 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory The Ceneral Counsel advised the q
tvudes a 45-day period, which the statute U.S.C. 3512(c)(2)).
were consistent with that Act.The Ity 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
b /
Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear protection of the public health and these final rules.In addition, the Y
Regulatory Commission. Washington, safety in areas around nuclear power Commission directs that the transcripts
(
D.C. 20555 (telephone: 301-443-5900).
facilities.The Commission began this of these meetings shallbe patt of the j
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION* On reconsideration in recognition of the administrative record in this rulemaking.
M.r September 19,1979 and on December 19, need for more effective emergency However, the transcripts have not been 1979, the Commission published for planning and in response to the ThU reviewed for accuracy and, therefore, Wi public comment (44 FR 54308 and 44 FR accident and to reports issued by are only an informal record of the 75167) proposed amendments to its responsible offices of government and matters discuned.
[.
E
^
emergency planning regulations for the NRC's Congressional oversight After evaluating all public comment
(
>1 production and utilization facilities-committees.
letters received and all the information On December 19,1979, the Nuclear obtained during the workshops as well Extensive comments were received, all Regulatory Commission published in the as additional reports such as the W
of which were evaluated and considered in developing the final rule.The Federal Register (44 FR 75107) proposed Presidential Commission and the NRC
$N comments received and the staffs amendments to to CFR Part 50 and SpecialInquiry Group Reports, t%
M evaluation is contained in NUREGm4 Appendix E to Part 50 of its regulations.
Commission has decided to publish the i
f In addition, the NRC conducted fouf Publication of these final rule changes in final rule changes described below.
3 RegionalWorkshops to solicit the Federal Register is not only related y#
to the Deceml'er 19,1979 proposed rule Description of Fina} Rule Changes available in NUREG/CP-0011 (April changes but also incorporates the The Commission has decided to adopt h
[
comments; these comments are proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 50 a version of the proposed rules similar
,4
?
J 1980).'
and 70 (44 FR 54308) published on to alternative A described in Sections A'
2
' Codes of Nt! REC documents are avstlable et Septemb'er 19,1979. Interested persoru 50.47 and 50.54 in the Federal Regt<ter j
- the Commisslan's Pubuc Document Room.171711 were invited to submit written Notice dated December 19,1979 (44 FR h,
75167), as modified in light of comments.
4 NaseNrom'thYEvIr m$nfPrt ns fD e Washington D.C 2055s. Attenuon: Publicauons These rule: are consistent with the y
S information on current price, may be obtained by i%
Sales Manaser.
writing the U Bu Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l Y
f 8712140307 890819 h
ADOCK 0a000293 l
fDR PDR 5q l
-. Y:4
- @g',:,j g
Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 43, No.182 / Tuesday, August 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55403
$yd approach outlined by FEMA and NRC in applicant / licensee will be required to
- 6. Requirement for specialized training a Memorandum of Understanding (45 FR submit its emergency plans, as weU as (Section TV.F) for up.tesf ate plan
- st
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)
,?
the NRC can make a favorable finding then make a finding as to whether the Applicants for a construction permit 4
y that the integration o'onsite and offsite state of onsite and offsite emergency would be required to submit rnore y,
^
emergency planning provides preparedness provides reasonable information as required in the 10 IQ
'l reasonable asst.rance that adequate assurance that adequate protective Section II of Appendix E.
Pg i protective measures can and will be measures can and will be taken in the Ratior_ ale for the Final Rules 5
l-taken in the event of a radiological event of a radiological emergency.
The Commission's final rules are 4-emeryncy.!n the case of an operating The NRC will base its finding on a based on the significance of adequate y..
reactor,ifit is determined that there are review of the FEMA findings and emergency planning and preparedness
^ ](.
- p such deficiencies that a favorable NRC determinations as to whether State and to ensure adequate protect'on of the finding is not warranted and lf the local emergency plans are adequate and deficiencies are not corrected within 4 capable of be!ng implemented and on Public health and safety. lt is clear, based on the various official reports 4 d months of that determination, the the NRC assesstcent as to whether the described in the proposed rules (44 FR
.g ;.]
Commission will determine applicant's/ licensee's emergency plans 75189) and the public record compiled in "3
expeditiously whether the reactor are adequate and capable of being this rulemaking, that onsite and offsite ch should be shut down or whether some implemented. In any NRC licensing emergency preparedness as weU as 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 j the Commission believes that the pubtle a.Ano rating license will not be Commi o a
ac d at 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.,
U.S.C. 558(c]).
plant may be required to shut down if it The standards that the NRC will use is determined that there are deficiencies fd rse of T'b in making its determinations under these such that a favorable NRC findiss an accident.ne accident also showed
~~.l 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 i
ca procedures for nonnuclear emergencies determination.
consequetices, will affect the way the d
i4 presently in existence.The standards
- 2. Emergency planning considerations various State and local entities react to E#>
O ire a restatement of basic NRC and now must be extended to " Emergency protect the public from any dangers
[F '
joint NRC-FEMA guidance to licensees Planning Zones," and associated with the accident. In order to and to State and local governments. See
- 3. Detailed emergency planning discharge effectively its statutory 3A NUREG-0654; FEMA-REP-1, " Criteria implementing procedures of both responsibilities, the Commission must d,'
W for Preparation and Evaluation of licensees and applicants for operatin8 know that proper means and procedures Radiological Emergency Response Plans licenses must be submitted to NRC for will be in place to assess the course of d1 and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear review.
an accident and its potential severity,
>f Power Plants for interim Use and In addition, the Commission is that NRC and other appropriate
. h: '
/P i
Comment," (January 1980). In deciding revising to CFR Part 50. Appendix E.
authorities and the public will be whether to permit reactor operation in
" Emergency Plans for Production and notified promptly, and that edequate s$'
- I the face of some deficiencies, the Utilization Facilities," in order to clarify, protective actions in response to actual Y.
I Commission will examine among other expand, and upgrade the Commission's or anticipated conditions can and wi!!
O I
?[
factors whether the deficiencies, are emerbency plarming regulations-be taken.
I significant for the reactor in question.
Sections of Appendix E that are The Commission's organic statutes whether adequate interim compensatory expanded include:
provide it with a unfque degree of hi actions have been or will be taken
- 1. Specification of" Emergency Action discretion in the execution of agency d
{Jyy ;
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 determining the sufficiency of " adequate emergency planning information Electric Corp. v. NRC, 598 F.2d 759,771
- .Nc i
lt[
4}p r; y interim compensatory actions" under (Section W.D)
& n.47 (3d Cir.1979). "Both the Atomic this rule, the Commission will examine
- 3. Provisions for the State and local Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy I
State plans, local plans, and licensee governmental authorities to have a Reo%nization Act of1974 confer broad plans to determine whether features of capability for rapid r,oufication of the equlatory functions on the Commission j;
one plan can compersate for public during a seaous reactor and specifically authorize it to yy,
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
and safety is adequate. This 15 minutes afternutification by the responsibilities under the Acts,42 U.S C q-interpretation is consistent with the licensee (Section IV.D) l 2201(p)." Public Service Co. of New jq l
l provisions of the NRC Authorization Act
- 4. A licensee onsite technical support Hampshire v. NRC, 582 F.2d 77,82 (1st for fiscal year 1980, Pub. L 96-295.
center and a licensee near site Cir.), cert denied. 439 U.S 1046 (1978).
C l
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)
- 1. In order to continue operations or to
- 5. Provisions for redundan*
Atomic Energy Act " clearly l
recieve en operating license, an communene systems (Section W.E) contemplates that t',.i Commission shall g'
e l
F l
c
- 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 proposed rule changes.The fullowing W
by regulation set forth what the public exemptions.
5.The Commission,in developing this d
safety requiremats are as a prerequisite major issues have been rrdsed in the to the issuance of any license or permit comments received.
aspect of the proposed rule, must under the Act,"PowerReactor Issue A:NRC Review and Concurrence consider its own history.There was time
[h Development Co. v, International Union in State and LocolRadiologicalPlans when regulation was characterized by f
w of ElectricalBodio Machine Workers.
- 1. FEMA is best suited to assess the the leaders of the agency by simple and h
367 U.S. 396. 404 (1901). Finally, it is also adequacy of State and local radiological very appropriate expressions. The
/A clear that " Congress, when it enacted ernergency planning and preparedness process was to be " effective and g
(42 U.S.C. 2230).. must have and report any adverse findings to NRC efficient."The application of regulatory authority was to be " firm, but fair."
Q envisloned that licensing standards, for assessment of the licensing Regardless of the outcome of the u
especially in the areas of health and consequences of those findings.
safety regulation, would vary over time
- 2. The proposed rule falls to provide
" concurrence" issue, the Commission as more was learned about the hazards objective standards for NRC must appreciate that alternative B is not M.
of generating nuc! car energy. Insofar as concurrence, reconcurrence, and fair. It is not effective regulation.
C demanding. Congress surely would have withdrawal of concurrence.
Issue D: Public Education 7
those standards became more
- 3. In the absence of additional Only information required to inform e
wanted the new standards,if the statutory authority, the proposed rule the public about what to do in the event W
Commission deemed it appropriate, to frustrates Congressionalintent to of a radiolo8 cal emergency need be J
apply to those nuclear facilities already preempt State and local government disseminated.Thi a should be
?
1 i s licensed," Et. Pierce Utilities Authority Veto power over nuclear power plant flexibility, in any particufar case, as to
- v. United States, 000 F.2d 986,990 (D.C.
{
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 iTp.
M well ao its own determination on the significance of emergency preparedness, the proposed rule.
- 1. A few r.ommenters felt that NRC the Commission has therefore concluded 8u B:EmergencyP!cnm.og Zones had no authority to premulgate a rule as y
5 that adequate emergency preparedness Ip l the one proposed.
4
- 2. Other comments were the nature is an ecsential aspect in the protection
- 1. Regulatory basis for imposition of tut NRC has statutory authority only y'
of the public health and safety.The the Emergency lanning Zone concept
... ide the limits of the plant site.
p Commission recognizes there is a should be expressly stated in the
- 3. Some commenters suggested that possibility that the operation of some reactoro may be affected by this rule regulation.
NRC and FEMA should seek additional i
- 2. Provisions regarding the plume legislation to compel State and local through inaction of State and local exposure pathway EPZ should provide a governments or an inability to comply maximum planning distance of to miles.
governments to have emergency plans, if y
with these rules.The Commission
- 3. References to NUREG-0390 should that is what is necessary, N
believes that the potential restriction of be deleted to avoid disputes over its issue F: Schedule for Irnplementation g
plant operation by State and local meaning in licensing proceedings.
The schedule for implementing the
- .e officials is not significantly different in
^ "' O
- A^
No proposed rule was considered to be kind or effect from the means already unrealistic and in some cases in conflict available under existing law to prohibit U
I with various State schedules already in reactor operation, such as zoning and
- 1. Neither attemative is necessary existence. A sampling of the comments
'if land.use laws, certification of public because the Cunmission has sufficient on the implementation schedule follows:
convenience and necessity, State authority to order a plant shut down for 1.The 180 days in the schedule is an financial and rate considerations (10 safety reasons and should be prepared insufficient amount of time to
$y CFR 50.33(I)), and Federal to exercise that authority only on a accomnlish tasks of this magnitude: the environmentallaws.The Commission case.by. case basis and when a Federal govemment does not work with 4
notes however, that such considerations particular situation warrants such such speed. States are bureaucracies M
generally relate to a one time decision f.C on siting. whereas this rule requires a
- 2. No case has been made by the also: there is no reason to assume they.
action.
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 presently concurred in. It is just p
f preparedness. Relative to applying this attemative D. and certainly no other insufficient time for new concurrences M
rule in actual practice, however, the NRC regulations exist tht would and review. Also, to get a job done Commission need not shut down a require such action based on a concept within that tin e frame means a hurried M
facility entil all factors have been as amorphous as " concurrence in State job, rather than an acceptable and D
E thoroughly examined. The Commission and local emergency plans."
believes, based on the record create d by 3.The idea that the Commission might meaningful plan.
b
- 2. The time provided is inadequate for the public work hops, that State and grant an exemption to the rules that States to acquire the hardware needed.
O local officials an pas re in this would permit continued operation States must go out for competitive bids ia undertaking will endeavor to provide (under alternative B) has title lust as the Federal govemment does.
Q' fully for public protection.
slgnificance, primarily because 10 CFR Between processing and accepting a bid fr Part 50.12(a) already permits the and actual delivery of equipment,it may
?
3 g
g granting of exemptions, tske a year to get the hardware.The i-The Commission appreciates the
- 4. The process and procedures for State budgets years ahesd: therefore,if extensive public comments on this 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 money. it may have to go to the
[N of the workshops, the NRC has received 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/
public process that may not fit the requirement.
response capabilities is a sound 1 a emergency preparedness program.
? J Federal schedule.
IssueI Emergency Action f.evels Federal support (funding and technical 9
- 3. NRC and FEMA could not review 70 t
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
flexil ility to develop emergency action program for all emergencies.
did not think that NRC and FEMA can t
M review all the plans within the time level criteria appropriate for the facility
.I#### M ###NI d
l frame scheduled.If the Federal in question, su ject to NRC approval.
]1 government cannot neet its schedule.
Inflexible NRC emergency action level
%e States support Federal oversight why or how shedd the States 7 standards are not necessary, and guidance in the deve:opment of j
offsite response capabilities. However, e
by State and local governments $riated
- 4. Funding could not be appro I'#"#I# N"l"8 many States feel the confusion and h}
y efore ine deadline. it was suggested that the
- 1. Mandatory provision for training uncertainty in planning requirements k
Commission use H. Rept. #96-413.
local service personnel and local news followingnree Mile Island is not a bi 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
j, frame rather than that in the proposed
- 2. Public participation in drills or development of e!!ective nuclear facility N
gi rule or use a sliding-scale time frame critiques thereof should not be required.
Incident response capabliities will hl since States are at various stages of 3.%e provision regarding formal require close coordination and N
g6l completing thelt emergency plans.
critiques should be clarified to mean the cooperation among responsible Federal
$1 t
licensee is responsible for developing agencies. State government. and the i{i h
Issue C:Impoct o/PmposedRule and conducting such critiques.
nuclear ladustry. An orderly and 1
1.The proposed regulations were
- 4. Definitive performance criteria for comprehensive approach to this eIfort d
considered by some commenters as evaluation of drills should be developed makes it necessary that onsite W
unfair to utilities because it was felt by the licensee, subject to NRC res nsibilities be clearly associated M
lh they place the utilities in the po!1tical approval.
wit NRC e d the nuclear industry M
y M
j and financial role that EMA should be while deferring offsite responsibilities to M).1 Issue K! Implement /ng Pmcedums State govemment with appropriate assuming. NRC is seen as in effect d
- i giving State and local governments veto NRC review ofimplementing FEMA oversight and assistance.
(i.
}q over the aperation of nuclear plants. It procedures is only necessary to apprise In addition to these comments. two N
was questioned whether this was an the NRC staff of the details of the plans petitions for rulemaking were filed in
- a 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
that utilities, their customers, and their an actua emergency.
were treated as pubtle comments rather b
than petitions and were considered in 6*
r choreholders should not be penalized by Is#"# L Pandi#8 develop:ng the final rule.
~
N a shutdown (with a resulting financial burden) because of alleged deficiencies
- 1. Nuclear facilities, although located
%e Commission has placed the O
or lack of cooperation by State and local in one govemmental tax jurisdiction and planning objectives from NUREG-0654, x
i officials.
taxed by that jurisdiction, affect other FEMA-REP-1. Criteria for Preparation 4
- 2. It was suggested that NRC's Office jurisdictions that must lear immediate and Evaluation of Radiological b'
y of Inspection and Enforcement conduct and long-term planning costs without Emergency Response Plans and D
l the reviews of the State and local having access to taxes from the facility, Preparedness in Support of Nuclear e'
a governmental emergency response plans
- 2. As the radius of planning Power Plants for Interim Use and k
g i{'
in order to ensure prompt, effective, and requirernents becomes greater, few Comment," January 1980,into the final 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 k
- 3. One commenter noted that the encompasses county lines, State lines, in developing the final regulation.ne W
i '
g public should be made aware of the and in some instances,intemational Commission notes that the planning I
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 increases to the consumer due to need to address fixed nuclear facility Govemment Radiological Emergency securing alternative energy sources, and planning at alllevels of government, Response Plans in Support of Fixed i
the health and safety factors associated oeginning at the lowest and going to the Nuclear Facilities," (December 1,1974) with those attema*1ve sources, highest. Alllevels of government need and Supplement 1 thereto dated March i
t accees to immediate additional fundo to 15,1977 which have 1,een in use for i)
Issue H:Public Notification upgrade thelt response capability.
some time.
l gf'
- 1. Ultimate responsibility for public
- 4. It is well understood that the
%e approximately 60 public comment y
U notification of a radiological emergency consumer ultimately must pay the price letters rece!ved on NUREG-0654 were Y'
must be placed on State and local for planning. regardless of the levelin not critical of the proposed planning b
government.
government at which costs are incurred.
objectives.%e Commission also notes
- 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 e
justification. falls to differentiate administer the tax receipts, and what is representative encouraged the use of the 7
{J between s.reas close in and further away the most effective manner in which to planning objectives from NUREG-0654
}M.
from the site, and ignores the technical address'.he problem.
In the final regulations in order to O
..y 5
S tc
I l# $
,$.a h,
19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August
,,e 55406 and longer times to release significant pf reduce ambiguity and provide specificity capability of implementation of State amounts of activityin many scenarios).
G.q and local plans, Guidance regarding the radionuclides to
- ?
to the final regulation.
4.To make decisions with regard to be considered in planning la set forth in d
Based on the above, the Commission the overall state of emergency NUREG-0398; EPA 520/1-78-016, d
has decided to modify the proposed rule preparedness (i.e Integration of the
" Planning Basis for the Development of g
changes in the areas discussed in licensee's emergency preparedness as State and local Government M
r*
paragraphs I through X below, determined by the NRC and of the Radiological Emergency Response Plans dQ
- 1. FEMA /NRC Relationship State / local govemments as determined in Support of Light Water Nuclear
]
by FEMA and reviewed by NRC) and Power Planf.s/ December 1978.
M In issuing this rule. NRC recognizes issuance of operating!! censes or the significant responsibilities assigned shutdown d coersting reactors.
IV.Rationnla for Alternatives Choses 4
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 dg new role, NRC agreed on September 11.
FR 42342, dated June 24,1980).
on these alternatives; based on due 19r9, that FEMA should henceforth chair to the proposed FEMA rule, consideration of allcomments received Accor the FederalInteragency Central FEMA approve State and local as well as the discussions presented y
j Coordinating Committee for.
emergency plans and ptsparedness, 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 alternatives to retain in the final rule, y
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).
,w directive assigning FEMA lead lot.al plans and the capabilities of State the alternatives dealth with conditioning g
.l responsib!!1ty for offsite emergency and local governments Jo effectively the issuance of an operatinglicense or q
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 Plannleg Zee Concept y 7, e
,twe ite atives A and B
- 8n in these sections was that, under g
re p ns b ities t a re og ized that the The Commission notes that the alternative A. the proposed rule would
@d MOU, which became effective January regulatory basis for adoption of the require a determination by NRC on 14,1980, supersedes some as$ects of Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) concept lasuing a license or permitting continued
- 4 previous agreements.Specifi ally,the is the Commission's decision to have aoperation of plants in those cases where g
MOU identifies FEMA responsibilities conservative emergency planning policy relevant State andlocal emergency
[q with respect to emergency preparedness in addition to the conse vatism inherent response plans had not received NRC d
as they reIate to tIRC as the following:
in the defense in-depth philosophy.This concurrence.Denialof alicense or h
1.To make findings and policy was endorsed by the Commission shutdown of a reactor would not follow determinations as to whether State andin a policy statement published on automatically in every case.Under M
local emergency plans are adequate.
October 23,1979 (44 FR 61123). At that alternative B, shutdown of the reactor
{d,[
[
2.To verify that State and local time the Commission stated that two would be required automatically if the
.mergency Planning Zones (EPZs) appropriate State and local emergency emergency plans are espable of being implemented (e g., adequacy and should be established around each light-response plans had not received NRC 3j maintenance of procedures, training, water nuclear power plant. The EPZ for concurrence within tk prescribed time IW resources, staffing levels and airborne exposure has a retllus of about qualification. and equipment)-
10 miles; the EPZ for contaminated food periods unless an exemption is granted.
N After consideration of the public 3, To assume responsibility for and water has a radius of about 50 record and on the recommendation of its $
M@M emergency preparedness training of miles. Predetermined protective action staff, the Commission has cho9en a text plans are needed for the EPZs The 4.To develop and issue an updated exact size and shape of each EPZ will be for Sections 50.47 and 50.54 (r) and State and local officials.
that is similar to, but less restrictive V
series of Interagency assignments that decided by emergency planning officials than, alternative A in the proposed rule.
E delineate respective agency capabilities after they consider the specific Rather than providing for the shutdown pro-edures for coordination and are considered large enough to provide a of the reactor as the only enforcement
{i; conditions at each site.These distances and responsibilities and define action and prescribing specific direcion for emergency planning and response base that would support preconditions for the shutdown remedy, jL 4
activity outside the planning zone the final rule makes clear that for Specifically, the NRC responsibilities should this ever be needed.
emergency planning rules. like all other 4
response-for rge ey preparedness identified Ill. Position on Planning Basis for Small rules, reactor shutdown as outlined in
,A 4 4
Ught Water Reactors and Ft.St.Vrain the rule is but one of a number of
".To assess licensee emergency plans The Commission has concluded thatpossible enforcement actions and many
[d i
1 for adequacy.
the operators of smalllight water-cooled factors should be considered in 2.To verify that licensee emergency power reactors (less than 250 MWt) anddetermining whether it is an appropriate
@W plans are adequately implemented (e.g..
the Ft. St.Vrain gas cooled reactor may action in a given case.This Commission W
choice is consistent with most of the 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$
b
)
levels and qualifications. and basis.This conclusion to based on the
- su secuon v tar e discualon comrnina Q
lower potential hazard from these equipment).
3.To review the FEMA findings and f acilities (lower radionuclides inventory concurnnec determinations on the adequacy and lbet
t l
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.162 / Tuesday, August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55407 t
governments and is consistent with the the licensee emerger.cy response plans.
basis for cholce of notification
?
provisions of Section 100 of the NRC After these two determinations have capability requirements for offsite l
l j
fiscalyear1980 Authorization Act.
been made,NRC will make a finding in authorities and for the public.
l g
i Alternative B was seen by some of the the licensing process as to the overall Ec ergency plans must be developed e
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.
governments to reflect their concerns response plans was voluntary on behalf predesignated radio and television i
,a 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 alternatives VI. Fifteen-Minute Notifiestion not to activate the public notification h.
In Appendilx E. Sections H.C and III, Q
alternative A would require an The requirement for the capability for system.
M applicant /licensea to outline "...
notification of the public within 15 Any accident inv61ving severe fuel
- 1' corrective measures to prevent damage minutes after the State / local authorities degradation or core melt that results in l D to onshe end offsite prope." as well beve been notified by the licensee has significant inventories of thsfon -
p as protective measures for toe public.
been expanded and clarified. it also has products in the containment would Y
Alternative B addresses only protective been removed as a footnote and placed warrant immediato public notification Z
measures for the public health and in the body of Appendix E.The and consideration, ba6ed on the g
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 l
h safety should take clear precedence 1981.nis extension of time has been potential for leakage of the containment l
bg over actions to protect property, adopted because most State and local building. In addition, the warning time l
%I Measures to protect property can be governments identified to the avallatele for the public to take action l
M taken on an ad hoc basis as resources Commission the difficulty in procurin8 may be substutfally less than the total l
'Q become available after an accident.
hardware, contracting for installa tion, time between the original initiating j
In Appendix E, under Training.
and developing procedures for operating event and the time at which significant 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, offsite authorities and the public are a these exercises to be performed every 5 have objected to the nature of the 15-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 to seek further information by t'
Commission is satisfied that the and unworkable.
stening to predesignated radio or TU provision that these exercises be Araong the possible alternatives to television stations. %e Commission N
performed every 5 years for each site this requirement are a longer h
will allow for an adequate level of notification time, a notification time that recognizes that not every individual Mj preparedness among Federal emergency varies with distance from the facility, or would necessarily be reached by the M
response agencies,in addition, under no specified time. la determining what actual operation of such a system under f<
these regulations, each licensee is that criterion should be, a line must be all conditions of system use. However, o
required to exercise annually with local drawn somewhere, and the Commission the Commission believes that provision R
governmental authorities. Furthermore, believes that providing as much time as of a genera 1 alerting system will (N "
Federal emergency response agencies practicable for the taking of protective significantly improve the capability for n
may have difficulty supporting exercises action is in the interest of public health taking protective actions in the event of U
every 3 years for all of the nuclear and safety.ne Commission recognizes an emergency.ne reduction of facilities that would be required to that this requirement may present a notification times from the several hours comply with these rule changes.
significant financialimpact and that the required for street-by-street notification i
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
p The term " concurrence" has been may never be an accident requiring under severe accident conditions. These deleted from the proposed regulations using the 15-minute notifh:ation actions could include staying indoors in yk.
and replaced with reference to the capability. However, the essential the case of a release that has already
- 7; actual procedure and standards that rationale behind emergency planning is occurred or a precautionary evacuation 1, J NRC and FEMA have agreed upon and to provide additional assurance for the in the case of a potential release theught 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 make a finding and determination as to nottlication capability requirement is cause relatively quick releases for which the adequacy of State and local wholly consistent with that rationala, protective actions, at least for the public y-'
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.
Fq bn 4
w r7-k 7"
M W.) -
.z.r._'
'. ~
y ~~
g o
. z.
_.___ m
- (
f
1 y
i m%
1 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations q
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.182 / Tuesday, August S
55408 seeking an operating license from NRC f
reasons exist for reactor operation.
that have not had an exercise involving b, l Some comments received on the Finally, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(f), the the State plan at that facility site.
proposed rule advocated the use of a Commission may,in appropdate The Commission has determined p'
li staged notification system with quick circumstances, make the order under the criteria in 10 CFR Part 51 that
'd el notification required only near the plant.' immediately effective, which could an environmentalimpact statement for q
i I
The Commission believes that the result inimmediate plant shutdown the amendments to to CFR Part 50 and f
capability for quick notification within subject to a later hearing, Appendix E thereof is not required. His the entire plume exposure emergency determination is based on y,1 planning zone should be provided but g.p g,8
" Environmental Assessment for Final 8"d secognizes that some planners may wish
, in view of the requirements in these I
l f
to have the option of selectively rule changes reigarding the actions to be Changes to 10 CFR Part 50 and t
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 M, <
actt;al response. Planners should government planning and preparedness
!j-Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0685, carefully cpnsider the impact of the are or become inadequate, a utility may 6
would need to make and the desirability interest as well as its responsibi!Jty to Negative Declaration: Finding of No p')
h added decisions that offsite authorities have an incentive, bas ~ed on its own self June 1980). Comments on the " Draft f
of establishing an official prvvide power, to assist in,providing Significant impact" (45 FR 3913, January h
communication link to all residents in manpower, items of equipment, or other 21,1980) were considered in the j) preparation of NUREG-0685 the plume exposure emergency planning resources that the State and local 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 VII. Effective Date of Rules and Other Commission believes that in view of the and Sections 552 and 553 cf Title 5 of the f,
g President's Statement of December 7, United States Code, notice is hereby t
Guidance 1979, giving FEMA the lead role in given that the following amendments to 1
3 Prior to the publication of these offsite planning and preparedness, the Title 10, Chapter 1. Code of Federal E
amendments, two guidance documents 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 toy
]
" Draft Emergency Action level governments in upgrading and f j codfficatfora.
Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants."
maintaining their emergency phnning Part 50-Domestic Ucensing of
,;f
[ September 1979) and NUREG-0654/
and preparedness (and ifit is to be Production and Utilization Facilities E,
W[
FEMA-REP-1," Criteria for Preparation required, the mechanics for doing so)is
- 1. Paragraph (g) of Section 50.33 is and Evaluation of Radiological bryond the scope of the present rule 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 governments solely for emergency 1 50.33 Comment " (January 1980), it is e xpected preparedness purposes by the Federal informatkm.
fa 4
- g that versions of these documents, government would come through FEMA.
(g)lf the application is for an 1
revised on the basis of public comments a
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
1 M preparedness to meet this final nuclear power facilities will be required radiological emergency response plans 1 7 regulatfun. In the interim, these by NRC to exercise their plans: these of State and local governmental entities B d-documents should continue to be usedexercises should involve exercising the in the United States that are wholly or A F as guidance.
appropriate local government plans in partially within the plume exposure Vill. llearing Procedures Used in support of these facilities.The State pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ)', as well as tbo plans of State implementation of These Regulaticas may choose to limit its participation in exercises at facilities other than the governments wholly or partially within overall state of emergency preparedness facility (site) chosen for the annual the ingestion pathway EPZ.' Generally, Should the NRC believe that the exercise (s) of the State plan.
the plume exposure pathway EPZ for
$ y at and around a licensed facility is such Each State and appropriate local nuclear power reactors shall consist of that there is some question whethe. a government shall annually conduct an an area about to miles (to km) fri radius 1
i facility should be permitted to continue exercise jointly with a commercial and the ingestion pathway EPZ shall to operate, the Commission may lasue nuclear power facility. However, States consist of an area about 50 miles (80 km) i an order to the licensee to show cause, with more than one facility (site) shall in radius.The exact size and pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, why the plant schedule exerefres such that each configuration of the EPZs surrounding a 7
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 L
or in the overall state of emergency less than once every 3 years for sites e cmersency Plannin Zones flyZat are discussed with the plume exposure pathway EPZ in Nunr&cwe. EPA uch.4 cts. *Plannins Daos preparedness, 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 for sites i' g D",'l 4*'a(of8[,'*" g,c,o;e g,
the opportunity to demonstrate to the with the ingestion exposure pathway of tashi waar t ucint Ponr PlanC Decemtier I
i Commission a satisfaction, for example, EpZ partially or wholly within the State.
- 1r me siete and locat.merg ncy c.. pons, p1.no j
ms.
that the alleged deficiencies are not The State shall choose, on a rotational han ben povlously provided to the NRC for dj$'[nc,y,,"h""(
l significant for the teactor in question.
basis, the site (s) at which the required i9 Y
whether adequate interim compensating annual exercise (s)is to be conducted;
',",'[y"',$"j$,*,$p
?
actions have been or will be taken priority shall be given to new facilities reautrement i
promptly, or whether other compelling g
2
N Federal Reibter / Vol. 45. No.162 / Tuesday. August 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations 55409 l
'e capabilities as they are affected by such (3) Arrangements for requesting and established for emergency workers. The conditions as demography, topography, effectively using assistance resources means for controlling radiological u,
land characteristics. access routes. and have been made, arrangements to exposures shallinclude exposure ql' jurisdictionalboundaries.%e size of the accommodate State andlocalstaff at guidelines consistent with EPA i
EPZa also may be determined on a case. the licensee's near-site Emergency Emergency Wo'rker and Lifesaving by-case basis for gas-cooled reactors Operations Facility have been made.
Activity Protective Action Guidea.
and for reactors with an authorized and other organizations capable of (12) Arrangements are made for J
powerlevelless than 250 MW thermal.
augmenting the planned response have medical services for contaminated i
The plans for the ingestion pathway been identified.
injured individuals.
shall focus on spch actions as are (4) A steded emergency (13) General plans for recovery and 1
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)
[d pathway.
- 2. A new I 50A7 is added.
system and effluent parameters. is in conducted to evaluate major portions of 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 by (a)(1) Ne operating license for a reliance on information provided by develop and maintain key skills, and nuclear power reactor will be issued facility licensees for determinations of deficiencies identified as a result of i;,
unless a finding is made by NRC that the minimum initial offsite response exercises or drills are (will be) i state of onsite and offsite emergency nicasures.
corrected.
% *4 (5) Procedures have been established (15) Radiological emergency response P
preparedness provides reasonable for notification, by the licensee, of State training is provided to those who may 9e assurance that adequate protective
' measures can and will be taken in the and local response organizations and for be called on to assist in an emergency.
L*
T-notification of emergency personnel by (16) Responsibilities for plan event of a radiological emergency, all organizations the content of initial development and review and for E) 3 (2) The NRC will base its finding on a and followup messages to response distribution of emergency plans are l
review of the Federal Emergency organizations and the public has been established. and planners are properly D!
Management Agency (FEMA) findings established; and means to provide early tralmi
~
and determinations as to whether Stete notification and clear instruction to the (c)(1) Failure to meet the standards set S
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
,,y,,, ult in the Commission declining on the NRC assessment as to whether
{athway ee to issue an Operating Limnset however, yl the applicant's onsite emergency plans (e
visions exist for prompt the applicant will have an opportunity l2 are adequate and capable of being communication among principal to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
- d imple nented. in any NRC licensing ms agt 8
Commission that deficiencies in the k
proceeding, a FEMA finding will p,r el and to t e pu 11 plans are not significant for the plant in a
constitute a rebuttable presumption on a (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 be taken promptly, or that there are l/
4 rnponse plans for nuclear power initial actions should be in an other compelling reasons to permit plant reactors must meet the following ernergency (e.g listening to a local standards, broadcast station &nd femaining operation.
(1) Primary responsibilities for indoors), the principal points of contreat (2) Generally, the plume exposure emergency response by the nuclear with the news media for dissemination pathway EPZ for nuclear power plants r
shall consist of an area about to mues facility licensee and by State and local of information dur'ng an emergency organizations within the Emergency (including the physicallocation or (to km)in redlus and the ingestion 1
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 various supporting organizations have dissemination of information to the exact size and configuration of the EPZs been specifically established, and each public are established.
surrounding a particular nuclear power principal response organization has staff (8) Adequate emergency facilities and reactor shall be determined in relation to respond and to augment its Initial equipment to support the emergency to local emergency response needs and response on a continuous basis, response are provided and maintained.
capabilities as they are affected by such v
(2) On. shift facility licensee (9) Adequate methods, systems, and conditions as demography, topography.
responsibuities for emergency response equipment for assessing and monitoring land characteristics access routes, and 1
are unambiguously defined, adequate actual or aotential offsite consequences jurisdictional boundaries.%e size of the staffing to provide initial faculty of a radiological emergency condition EPZs also may be dstermined on a case-by-case basis for gas. cooled nuclear accident response in key functional are in use.
areas is maintained at all times, timely (10) A range of protective actions reactors and for reactors with an j
augmentation of response capabilities is have been developed for the plume authorized powerlevelless than 250 available and the interfaces among exposure pathway EPZ for emergency MW thermal.ne plans for the ingentMn
. orkers and the public. Guidelines for pathway shall focus on such actions as varioue onsite response activities and offsite support and response activities the choice of protective actions during are appropriate to protect the food w
are specified.
an emergency, consistent with Federal ingestior pathway.
guidance, are developed and in place.
- 3. Section 50M is at: ended by adding i
+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 oIE"[*ar l o'"* *Yt ats-(11) Means for control!!ng radiological lsoM Coretione of seensea.
p
.r 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 gulati 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 actions have been or willbe taken cnd/or op: rate a nuclear power reactor emergency response plans of State and promptly, or that there are other shell follow and maintain in effect local governmental entities in the United compel!N reasons for continued O
q 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
.f operate e research reactor or a fuel 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 capable of being implemented, and on d !
effect emergency plans which meet the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation the NRC assessment as to whether the requirements in Appendix E of this Part.
with 3 copies to the Director of the licensee's emergency plans are adequate
. G i
The nuclear power reactor licensee rnay appropriate NRC regional office.
and capable of beingimplemented.
- Q p:i 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 3,
changea do not decrease the consist of an area about 10 miles (to km) Commission to take action under any 3
J l
effectiveness of the plans and the plans, in radius and the ingestion pathway EPZ other regulation or authority of the N
es changed, continue te meet the shall consist of an area about 50 mt!esCommission or at any time other than 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 The research reactor licensee and/or the Particular nuclear power reactor shall shall provide for the development, s
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
,g-and the plans, as changed, continue to land characteristics, access routes, and emergency preparedness program at 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
(
secrease the effectiveness of the by case basis for gas-cooled nuclear implementation of the emergency approved energency plans shall not be reactors and for reacters with an preparedness program. The review shall
@f l implemented without application to and authorized power levelless than 250 include an evaluation for adeguacy of spproval by the Commission. The MW thermal. The lans for the ingestion interfaces with State and loca.
%q l pathway EPZ sha focus on such governments and of licensee drills, hcensee shall furnish 3 copies of each y,
proposed change for approval; and/or if actions as are apprc'priate to protect the exercises, capabilities, and procedures.
fwd ingestion pathway.
The results of the review, along with
- y.,!
a change is made without prior 90 approval. 3 copies shall be submitted (2) For operating power reactors, the recommendations for improvements, within 30 days after the change is made licensee State, and local emergency shallbe documented, reported to the g
or proposed to the Director of the response plans shall be implemented by licensee's corporate and plant
' L I
uO appropriate NRC regional office Aprill,1981, ex:ept as provided in management, and retained for a period f
3)L 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 I
Q
,.d' ReactorRegu'ation or,if appropriate, that the state of emergency interface with State and local the Director of Nuclear Material Safety preparedness does not provide goverrunents shall be available to the A
and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory reasonable assurance that appropriate appropriate State and local y
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555 pr tective measures can and will be governments, (r) Each licer see who is authorized to taken in the event of a radiological (u) Within 60 days after the effective k-emergency and if the deficiencies are test reactor f acility with an authorized not corrected within four months of that date of this amendment, each nuc! car possess and/or operate a research or M)a power reactor !!censee shall submit to ower jevel greater than or equal to 500 finding, the Commission will determine erma u r a li n e of th type whether the reactor shall be shut down the NRC plans for coping with until such deficiencies are remedied or emergencies that meet standards in bi i 50 47(b) and the requirements of Y
P I*
emergency plans complying with to CFR whether other enforcement action is Appendix E of this part.
d appropriate. In determining whether a Part 50 Appendix E, to the Director of e
e e
e e
Nuclear Reactc ilegulation for approval shutdown or other enforcement action laP$(0. Appendix E. la t
y' O
i
'PP bt le.Each c n ce oi nto a cou 't n go er ac 8
l authorized to possess and/or operate a whether the licensee can demonstrate to Append!x L -Eroergency Planning and research reactor facility with an the Commission's satisf actio:. that the Preparedness for Production and Utillation 3 J y$[
authorized power levelless than 500 kW deficiencies in the plan are not Facilities' thermal, under a license of the type i tmewney mnnins zones grza) ere discussed 91 Tone of Contents specified in i 50.21(c), shall submit in rCRECm EPA s20/1-rs-mtvNnrans Basis 1' introduction
'f#*
emergency plans complying with 10 CFR lopment of 8'ata and local Government
-
- NRC statihas developed two reguistory guhin:
N i.
M for the Dl Erne *gency Respones Plans in Support part 50, Appendix E, to the Director of P ediologica Nuc. ear Reactor Regulation for approval or ught Water Nuclear Power Plants.* Decemter segrne.,ency Wnnins for Rnearch Fenctors?
and a 4z. " Emergency clannins in Puel Cyr.le W$
t within two years from the effective date 8 M the State and local emergency response plansFactDtWe and Plants Ucensed Under 10 CMt Parts St'
- n a hm imen g wlmly pmytded to the NRC for so and W aN! a Mnt NRC/MMA report NUREC-of this amendment, F
tnclusion in the faciuty docket. the oppkcant need0654. MNA Rrwcruena for Preparsuon and d
(s)(1) Each licensee who Is SuthoriZed only provide the approprwie rermnce to meet this Footnotes continued on next pase 1
to possess and/or operate a nuclear
@y l
requuement.
power reactor shall summit to NRC
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#
!!! The Final Safety Analysis T.eport population distributions, land use, and local operation: they sha!! describe the euential IV. Content of Emergency Plans jurisdictional boundaries for the EFis in the elements of advana planning that have been
[
j 4
V. Implementing Procedures case of nodear power reactors as weU as the considered and the provtsions that have been
'p..b sneans by which the standards of l 60 47(t) made to cope with emergency situations. The M
I Introduction will be met.
plans shallincmrporate information about the
[h}k" ?
Eache As a eninimum, the following items shall be emergency roepocos roles of supporting required hplicant for a construction permit is t
I 50.34(a) to include in the described; organizations and offatte agencies. nat prehminary safety analysis report e A. Onsite and offsite organizations for information sball be sufBeient to provide nW m discussion of preliminary plans for coping coping with emergencice and the means for assuranos of coordination among the LW hy t
with emergeacles Each applicant for en notification to the event of an emergency, of eupporting groups and with the boensee.
i operating license is required by i 60.34(b) to persons assigned to the emergency The plans submitted must indude a W
P description of the elements set out in Section f%d include in the final safety analysis report organizations.
IV for the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) '
[ py plans for coping with emergencies.
B. Contacts and arrangements made and
{ J.
j This appendix establishes minimum documented with local, State, and federal to an extent suf!1cient to demonstrate that the p
requirements for emergency plans for use in governmental agencies with responsibility foe plans provide reasonable saeurance that Na' attaining an acceptable state of emergency coping with emergencies, including appropriate snee.sures can and will be taken preparedness. These plans shall be described identification of the principal agencies, in the event of an m,-@
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 in! rmation needed to demonstrate jq pubhc associated with the operstion of measures are to be carried out (e p., in the.
C mpham wi6 the elemets ut fwe A.,
research and test reactors and fuel faciDt es case of an eveeustion. who authortres the below. Le. wganizaun for coping we gy 7;y,
hcensed under to CFR Parts 50 and 70 evacuation, how the puhuc is to be notified n& sum emergecin asonsment action, 3
involve considerations different than those and instructed, how the evacuation is to be associated with nuclear power reactors.
carried out); and the expected response of
- U** U" "I ']** "U "8""I**U "*
- fa
" ** U"" E
- "#I I*
L.g._$
O Consequently, the size of Emergency
'offde agencies in the event of an emergency.
and equipment, tr'aining','anatotalning Planning Zones *(EPZs) for facilites other (D) Testures of the facility to be provided
"*"#I #
""""O M7 than power reactors and the degree to which for onsite emergency first aid and "8N *** ""'
MMN comphance with the requirements of this d
tamin ti df
$a contain h
on a. a$by-
"d w n w ra d
l n c sia deter ne tns eng r es.
Informauon needed to demonsteste 3
C*buk*
E. Provisions to be medt, for emergency compliance with the standards described in r
- i II.ne Preliminary Safety Analysis Report tnetment at offsite facihties of individuals Section 6047(b)
- and they will be evaluated injured as a result of licensed setivities.
against those standards. no nuclear power Gj The Preluninary Safety Analysts Report F. Provisions for a training program for reactor operating 11&nse appbcant shall also h
shall contain sufficient information to ensure upl yees of the licensee. tododing those provide an analysk of the time required to z% 7 the compatibility of proposed emergency who are assigned specific authority and evacuste and for taking other r*otective NM plans for both onsite areas and the EPZa.
resp naibility in the event of an emergency, actions for trarious sectors and distanws
@e '
with facility design features, site layout. and and for other penons who are not emplo3 ees within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for r
site location with respect to a.ch of the Ucensee but whose assistance ansy be transient and permanent populations.
3 l
needed in the event of a radiological N
A. Oganizatiari A *j.
l Iwotnotes continued from inst pare emergency.
faniusuon of Ramoiogul thergency ke.ponse G. A preliminary analysis that pre}ects the ne organization, for copingwith M
S
@@gj 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.
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 documents are available at the Commission's Public A nudear power plant applicant shay assigned to the licensee's emergency g.
Document Room.1717 H Street, fiW. Washington, perform a preliminary analysis of the time organization and the means for nottlication of 4 @,.
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 a
emergency. Specifically, the following shall 4 91 purthosed from the Govemment Pnnuns Office.
distances within the plume exposure be indudei Wy "!
Informanon on curwnt pnces may be obistned by pathway EPZ for translent and permanent L A descnption of the normal plant
\\o e populations, noting major impediments to the evacuation or taking of protective actions.
Operating organization.
h na n.
u P
- 1. A desertption of the onsite emergency Selce Manager
'ITZa for power reactors are discussed in H. A preliminary analysis reflecting the response organization with e detailed g j, NUREG-03DO. ETA 5 o/t-76 016. " Planning Dee:s need to indude facihties, rystem6. and
&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; gt t
tra The stre of trie EPZa for o nuclear power plant 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
- c. Authorttles, responsibibtles and duties j
response needs and capabdmee as they et affected e ton usW Mabtim Mdo@l on to ensite emergency coordinator who a
by such cond2tions as demography. topography.
information and for dispatch of redialogicag shall be in cha of the exchange of i' l land charactensttes. access routes. and I-Junsdictmnalboundance The atte of the IT*a also monitoring teams within the EPZs: and e information wt offalte authorttles may be determined on a case by case besta for ass-prehminary analysis reflecting the role of the responsible for coonlinating and M'
cooled nuclear reertnes and for resetors wttb en onsite technical support center and of the implementing offsite emergency snessures.
f suthortred power levelless than 250 Mw thermal near-site emergency operations facihty in d**
bh " **"
- M' Generally, the plume eaposure petwey EPZ for essessing information, recommend!r.g
' '
- g ** '
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.
creem to Ntscosat NA-m-t enatled s
J, an area about 10 miles (ts km)in radius and the inpouen psthway EP shall consist of an area lH.De Final Safety Analysis Report "Critene far pvwparation and Evalust6an of strout so mDea (80 km)in redlua.
he Finalbefety Analysis Feport shall Raddagtd Emergency Kaspanse P.ana and vl d 9tegulatory Gulde 2 6 will be used as guidance for the acceptabihty of research and test tvector contain the plans for coping with preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants e ;
eme.genn,e. cones pians.
emergencies. ne plans shall be an tur iniects tjse and Cnaument'leeuery tona I
4y 4
massmann-
$T
$5 w
~
ff 19, 1980 / Rules and Regulations d
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No.182 / Tuesday,* August hh 55412
- 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 classes defined shall include: (1) notification of the release of radioactive materials to the h the plant site to augment the onsste of unusual events. (2) elert. (3) site area cmIrgrncy organization, emergency, and (4) general emergency. Dese
- 3. Facilities and supplies at the site for 7
environment;
- 4. Identification, by position and function classes are further discussed in NURIC-0654. decontamination of onsite individuals:J to b2 pstformed, of persons within the FEMA-REP-1.
- 4. Facilities and medical supplies at the site a
licensee organization who wiu be responsible for appropriate emergency first aid treatment:
7e for miking offsite dose projections, and a D. Notificot/on Procedums
- 8. Arrangements for the services of 4
d:scription of how these projections wul be
- 1. Administrative and physical means for physidans and other medical personnel A
m:de and the resub transelfted to State and notifying loc,al. State, and Federal officials qualified to handle radiation emergencies on-d locd authorities, fiRC, and other appropriate and agencies and agreements reached with these officials and agencies for the prompt
- 6. Arrangement for transportation of Q
site governmental entnas.
- 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
%*M licensse with special qualifications for coping should they become necessary, shau be facilities outside the site boundary:
with emergency conditions that may arise, described.nis description shallinclude
- y. Arrangements for treatment of h
Other persons with special qualifications, identification of the appropriate officials,by individuals injured in support of licensed M8 such as consultants, who are not employees title and agency,of the State and local activities on the site at treatment facilldes Q
of the licensee and who may be called upon government agencies within the EPZs.8 outside the site boundary for assisttnce for emergendes shall also be
- 2. Provisions shau be described for yearly
- 8. A licensee onsite technical support y
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.
exposure pathway EPZ of besie emergency operations facility from which effective D
- 6. A description of the local offsite services planning information, such as the methods direction can be given and effective control
%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.
the protective actions planned if an accident
- 9. At least one onsite and one offsite h
- 7. identification of, and assistance occurs. generalinformation as to the nature communications system: each system shall 4
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,
/
dissemination of information during an arrangements for emergencies, including coping with emergencies,
- 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 both ends of the communication links and the Q%
ordering, and controlling appropriate population within the plume exposure primary and backup means of protective ections, including evacuations pathway EpZ appropriate information that communication. Where consistent with the 6
when necessary, would be helpfulif an accident occurs.
function of the governmental agency, these G
- 3. A lleensee shall have the capabuity to arrangements wiD t h:de:
f B Assessment Actions notify responsible State and local
- a. Provision for communications with
/d The means to be used for determining the governmental agencies within 15 minutes contiguous State / local governments withfn M
magnitude of and for continusHy assessing after declaring an emergency.no licenses the plume exposure pathway EPZ. Such the impact of the release of radioactive shall demonstrate that the State / local communications shall be tested monthly.
materials shall be described, including officials have the capability to make a public
- b. provision for ummunications with emergency actionlevels that are to be used notification decision promptly on being Federal emergency response organizations.
as enteria for determining the need for informed by the licensee of an emergency Such communications systems shall be tested Uq notification and participation of local and condition. By July 1.1981, the nuclear power b
annually.
W State agencies. the Commission, and other reactor licensee shall demonstrate that
- c. provision for communications among the h
Federal egencies, and the emergency action administrative and physical means have been nuclear power reactor control room, the d
levela that are to be used for determining established for alerting and providing prompt onsite technical support center, and the near.
F when and what type of protective measures instructions to the public within the plume site emergency operations facility; and should be considered within and outside the exposure pathway EFZ.The design objective among the nuclear facility, the principal State e
4 site boundary to protect health and safety.
shall be to have the capsbuity to essentially and local emergency operations centers, and j
j The emergency action levels sha!! be based complete the initial notification of the public the field assessment teams. Such on in plant conditions and instrumentation in within the plume exposure pathway EPZ communications systems shau be tested i
ii eddition to onsite and offsite monf toring.
within about 15 minutes.The use of this annuaUy.
These emergency action levels shall be notification capabuity wUl range from
- d. Provisions for communications by the h
discussed and agreed on by the applicant and 'immediate nottf1 cation of the public(within licensee with NRC Headquarters and the W
State and local governmental authorttles and 15 minutes of the time that State and local appropriate NRC Regional Office Operations y
approved by NRC.They shall also be officials are notified that a situation exfsts Center from the nuclear power reactor yM reviewed with the State and local requiring urgent action) to the more IIkely control room. the onsite technical support h7 governmental authorities on an annual basis,events where there is substantial time center, and the near site emergency d
C Activot/on of Emergency Orgon/rollon available for the State and local operations facility. Such communications governmental officials to make a judgment shall be tested monthly.
j The entire spectrum of emergency whether or not to activate the public r
notification system.Where there is e decfslon E D *. 8 2
conditions that involve the alerting or activating of progressively larger segments of i
to activate the notificadon system, the State ne program to provide for (1) the training l
l the total emere ncy organization shall be and local officials will determine whether to of employees and exercising, by period!c described.The communication steps to be attivate the entire notification system drills, of radiation emergency plans to ensure k,
taken to alert or ?ctivate emergency simultaneously or in a graduated or staged that employees of the licensee are fs:nitiar personnelunder each class of emergency manner. The responsibility for activating with thelt specific emergency response duties y
shall be described. Emergency action levels such a public notifics' don system shaU remain and (2) the participation in the training and
[x (based not only on onsite and offsite with the appropriate government authorities.
drius by other persons whose assistance may ki radiation monitoring information but also on teadings from a number of sensors that E. Emergency rect /ittee and Equipment be needed in the event of a radiation
?"
emergency shall be described.This shall indicate a potential emergency, such as the Adequate provisions shau be made and include a descripuon of specialized initial
{i pressure in containment and the response of described for emergency facilities and training and periodic retrainLng programs to i
I 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 described. De existence. but not the detalls.
categories of emergency personneh 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
(
- a. Directors and/or coordinators of the licensed for operstion each year a full scale furnish the Director of Nuclear Material W@ j1 plant emergency organization; exercise is not conducted which involves the Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 7
1(
- b. Personnel responsible for accident State (s) within the plume exposure pathway Regulatory Commission, Washington.
D assessment, including control room shift EPZ.
D.C. 20555, with a copy to the 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, Chapter, each change within six months y
pj
- e. Repolt and damage control teams; Any weaknesses that are identified shau be after the change is made. Proposed N,. r pF
- f. First and and rescue teams; corrected.
changes that decrease the effectiveness b $
g Medical su port personnel; C Molnicining EmerFency Preparedness of the approved emergency plan shall
- h. Licensee's headquarters suppor Provisions to be employed to ensure that not be implemented without prior O'
personnel; the emergency plan. Its implementing application to and prior approval by the yd
- l. Seccrity personnel 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 ISec.181b. l., and o. Pub. L 83-703,88 Stat.
}
M local services personnel, e.g., local Civil described.*
p l
Defense. local law enforcement personnel.
E A8C"7 948 [42 USC. 2201); Sec. 201, as amended.
?
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 conduct of emergency preparedness fouowing an accident, reentry of the facility Stat. 413 (42 U.S.C. 5341])
[
]
The plan shall describe provisions for the would be appropriue or when operation Dated at Washington. DC this tith day of i
.2 exercises. Exercises shall test the adequacy could be resumed shall be described.
August 1980.
O "J
of timing and content of trnplementJng For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
' )"
procedures and methods, test emergency V, Implementing Procedures g-equipment and communication networks, test No less than 100 days prior to scheduled Samuey. CMlk.
the public notification system. and ensure lasuance of an operating !! cense for a nuclear Secretary of the Commission, g7 that emergency organization personnel are Power reactor or a license to possess nuclear pa tu. as.eum.d wa-an ao.ml A-M familiar with their duties. Each licensee shall material.3 cpples of each of the applicant's samo caos mus exercise at least annually the emergency plan detailed implementing procedures for its 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 Director of the appropriate NRC Regional 10 CFR Part 50
[P ]'
full. scale and smau scale exercises shau be Office with to copies to the Director of ff.
conducted and shall include participation by Nuclear Reactor Regulation or,if approptiste. Emergency Planning: Negative
~l appropriate State and local government the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Mrah Mg d m @h agencies as foHows:
eYul
%d W hh % %
(
ng icen oft I a s e. S ate ndio a em rgency i
an on r
5 i
year after the effective date of this rula. such AcExcr. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory y
plans as is reasonably achievable without implementing procedures shall be submitted Cominim D'
mandatory pub!;c p..;cipation shall be as soon as practicable but before full power Acnosc Final negative declaration:
4, g<
conducted operation is authorized. Prior to March 1.
- 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 WMQe &ch maw
~ j each th e
m n p implementing procedures 'o the Director of Commission s regulations require that g.
a q en ich willen b e ta e and local govemment within the plume the appropriate NRC Regional Office with 10 the environmentalImpact of certain
((, '?.
exposure pathway EPZ to participate in at 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 be prepared. If it is determined an b'
- b. For each site at which a power reactor is. Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or. If environmental impact statement need located for which the firet operating license appropriate, the Director of Nuclear Material not g prepare a negative declaration f
for that site is issued after the effective date Safety and Safeguards within 30 days of such will be issued.ne NRC has evaluated j}
of this amendment, within one year before n
the issuance of the operating license for full
- changes, 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 re\\utrements h,Y EPZ and each State within the ingestion for nuclear power plants (pu lished a
pathway EPZ to participate.
- 2. Section 70.32 is amended b addin8 elsewhere in this issue), and has Y
k*'i 2.The plan shau also describe provisions paragraph (I) to read as follows:
determined that the rule changes will for involving Federal emergency response not have a significant impact on the agencies in a fullacale emergency i 70.32 Conditions of ucenses.
preparedness exercise for each site at which human environment.nerefore, an e
environmental lmpact statement will not y
(i) Licensees required to submit be prepared, and a negative declaration 4a i ense o ope i n a 1 ast o ce ry 5 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 DATES:The rule changes for emergency
},b adequacy of communication Imks.
eIfect emergency plans spproved by the j
establishes that response agencies Commission. The licensee may make planning wiu become effective
.)
e November 3.1980.
understand the emergency action levels, and changes to the approved lans without of'f' site Commission approval o y if such Acoatssts: Copies of the Final j
d cal r offsite monito o
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
E shall be conducted at each site at which one requirements of Appendix E,Section IV.
Commission's Public Document Room at M,
V within the plume exposure pathway EPZ J
or more power reactors are located and 10 CFR Part 50.ne licensee shall 1717 H Street NW., Washington. D.C.
/
1 J.
k j
k i
O
e
- 19. 1980 / Rules and Regulations a
Fed:rd Registzt / Vol. 45. No.162 / Tuesday, August h
5S414 specified in the regulation that the environmental impact statement will not Commission will use in each case to y
and at local Public Document Rooms.
Single copies of the finalEnvircamental be prepared for these rule changes.
determine whether a shutdown is bg Assessment (NUREG-0685) are Analysis gCanments warranted. When considered together.
available for purchase through the NRC The groups that submitted comments the lack of any significant adverse
/
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 D.C. 20555).
were received from State or local Comntission action before a plant will
[
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 Regulatory Commission. Washington.
comments was that an Environmental that shutdowns will be infrequent and of AW D.C. 20355. Telephone: (301) 443-5966.
Impact Statement should be prepared short duration is sound.Thus, the h
On for the rule changes and that the assumption is retained in the final M
Environmental Assessment (NUREG-CUPPt.EMENT ARY INFORM ATION:
Janusry 21,1980 the Nuclear Regulatory Environmental Assessment "...
0685) and the impacts of extended
$k Commission published a ' Draft inadequately addresses the shutdowns are not considered valid W
Negative Declaration: Finding of N environmentalimpact of the Emergency impacts of these rule changes.
4.
Significant impact" (45 FR 3913. January Planning Proposed Rule and the.
The 14 reconstructed general h
21,1980) for proposed changes to 10 CFR economic and social impacts on U.S.
comments and a discussion of each
?
industry oflong term or permanent Part 50, il 50.33. 50.47,50.54 and follow..
M Appendix E that deal with emergency premature shutdowns of nuclear plants"
- 1. Thme commenters (see Toble)
M planning requirements for nuclear power (AEP).The comments have been contend that alternatives to the b
reconstructed into 14 general criticisma.
proposed rule changes are inadequately plants (44 FR 75167. December 19,1979),which have been analyzed for their addressed. They specifically mention
,7 A draft Environmental Assessment relevance to the validity of the c/ternouve ways of och/eving/on..
the some 3
accompanied the draft Negative Declaration.The comment period ended conclusions in the " Draft Negative end such osproposing legislot Declaration: Finding of No Significant In view of the existing safety record of f~
on Februsry 18.1980.
One matter warrants additional the nuclearIndustry and the lack of R
Impact."
Sixteen sets of comments were fy submitted and have been analyzed.
Although all16 commenters felt that the mention here. An assumption was made effective preparation for the TMI pi accident, the Commission had the
?
draft Environmental Assessment was in preparation of the DEA that following three alternatives from which M
shutdowns of nuclear power plants as a inadequate to support the Finding of No Significant Impact, the staff analysis result of actions taken under these rule to choose:
A.The Commission could take no does not support this view.The changes would be infrequent and of immediate action itself while commenters suggested that some points short duration. This assumption !s encouraging other parties. I.e., the Q
critical to the decision that an were in error, some required much more EnvironmentalImpact Statement should Congress, other Federal Agencies. the L%
in the draft Environmental Assessment States, and the utilities themselves to detailed discussion. and some points not be prepared.The basis for this take effective action. This "no action"
@N had been ignored.The errors have been assumption was that, since State and alternative would be counter to the corrected and do not significantly affect local authorities have the responsibility, Commission's legislative mandate to y
Ph the earlier conclusion. The levels of in common with the NRC, to protect protect public health and safety,in fact.
A detail and the omissions are generally pubile health and safety and are the TM1 accident was a clear indication
- j related to the penalties associated with concerned with meeting the energy that this " urging without requiring" d to
[
noncompliance with the rule.The staff needs of their citizens,it is likely that emergency preparedness had prove h
originally judged that invocations of the they will cooperate to ensure the be ineffective.This alternative clearly d
continued safe operation or timely could not stand in the face of the noncompliance penalties (i.e., nuclear infrequent and of short duration and the nuclear generation capability within Commission's responsibility in this area.
O commencement of safe operation of power plant shutdown) would be
,B. The Commission is a regulatory g
their Jurisdiction. The only significant agency and has as one ofits chief tools 4
associated impacts would thus be adverse reaction by the State and local the authority to issue regulations that g%@p insignificant. Commenters asserted that governments that must bear this burden bind those parties that it regulates,if an there will be frequent andlong term has been that complications in funding effective method for achieving N
shutdowns which will have severe of State programs and lead time for protection of public health and safety is
[
impacts which would require detailed equipment acquisitten might make it available through promulgation of g
1 consideration in an Environmental difficult to completely satisfy all of the regulations with specific requirements I
1 j Impact Statement.The staff analysis has planning and preparedness and penalties and conditions governing 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, d
l b
studies are necessary, been made in implementation has been extended to C. If the Commission judged that 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 continued operation of existing plants 4
have not been allered. Based on this extensions should be sufficient in most while effective regulations are 7]
assessment, a final determination has been made by the Director. Office of it should also be noted that the developed,it had the authority to y
- cases, Standards Development, that the Commission has chosen the alternative impose immediate shutdowns until a y>
solution could be found.The safety W
proposed rule changes will not have a that requires Commission action to record of nuclear power, including the N
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
- il r
/
TM1 accident. does not support an
' t, i IndustryJwida jadgment of imminent.
M' significant danger. However, potential h(
does exist for significant harm to the
... i publicin the event of a severe accident 2
and the events at TM1 suggest that plans l (??
must be made to account for this iT potential problem. Notwithstanding this
[ (,
potential, given the likelihood of an p3 accident requiring off site emergency t
{llf protective measures. lmmediate T
industry wide shutdown and the l!
attendant severe long term impacts are
.o not warranted.
l di s
Alternatives A and C are clearly
. ;'i unacceptable.The discussion of
-}f alternatives in the Final Environmental Assessment has not been changed from that in the Draft Environmental
.., y 4
~
Assessment.
$?h g.Seven commenters (see Tcble) kr assert that the impacts of shutdowns are
- . s underestimated and that shutdowns of multiple unitplant' orseveralin the
- c3 s
some State were not considered.
u,,
ffj swNo Coot 75tHi-es
{y:
4 I
V, :
i 3 t
9
$-a _. !
IJ l
l
? *.
i
.k z
e
[
i>
j
?,
t j
l
.]
1 r
g 4
]
l i.
I P.
i I
L 1